Part of:

Edition used:

John Joseph Lalor, Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States by the best American and European Authors, ed. John J. Lalor (New York: Maynard, Merrill, & Co., 1899). Vol 1 Abdication-Duty.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1679

This is a simplifed HTML format, intended for screen readers and other limited-function browsers.

About this Title:

Vol. 1 of a massive 3 volume, 3,000 page compendium of nearly every aspect of 19th century American economics and political institutions. An additional bonus are the numerous translation of articles written for the French-language Dictionnaire de l’économie politique published in 1852.

Copyright information:

The text is in the public domain.

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

TO THE
HON. ALEXANDER MITCHELL,
OF
MILWAUKEE, WIS.,
THE FIRST TO COUNSEL AND ENCOURAGE THE PREPARATION OF THIS WORK,
It Is
Respectfully Dedicated.

Edition: current; Page: [iv]Edition: current; Page: [v]

Preface

NEITHER American nor English literature has hitherto possessed a Cyclopædia of Political Science and Political Economy. The want of a work of reference on these important branches of knowledge has long been felt, especially by lawyers, journalists, members of our state and national legislatures, and the large and intelligent class of capitalists and business men who give serious thought to the political and social questions of the day. The present work, which will be completed in three volumes, is the first to supply that want. It is also the first Political History of the United States in encyclopædic form—the first to which the reader can refer for an account of the important events or facts in our political history, as he would to a dictionary for the precise meaning of a word. The French, the Germans and even the Italians are richer in works of reference on political science and political economy than the Americans or the English. The Germans have Rotteck and Welcker's Staatslexikon, and Bluntschli and Brater's Staatswörterbuch; the French, Block's Dictionnaire Général de la Politique, and the celebrated Dictionnaire de l'Economie Politique, edited by Guillaumin and Coquelin.

The "Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States" is intended to be to the American and English reader what the above-named works are to French and German students of political science and political economy. The articles by foreigners in our work are largely translations from the Dictionnaire de l'Economie Politique, the Dictionnaire Général de la Politique, the Staatswörterbuch, and original articles by Mr. T. E. Cliffe Leslie, the eminent English economist; while the American articles are by the best American and Canadian writers on political economy and political science. The task of writing the articles on the political history of the United States was confided to one person, Mr. Alexander Johnston, of Norwalk, Connecticut, thoroughness, conciseness and the absence of repetition and of redundancy being thus secured.

It has been our aim to produce a work covering ground not covered by other cyclopædias. Hence, the biographies of American statesmen are made purposely very short, ours not being a biographical dictionary. The biographies in question are intended mainly to supplement the articles on the political history of the United States; just as our Cyclopædia itself is intended as a supplement to every other cyclopædia in the English language. It is, in fact, a special Cyclopædia, and bears the same relation to other cyclopædias that, for instance, a cyclopædia of law, medicine or engineering does. Great care has been taken in the articles from the French and German to preserve the exact meaning of the writer. In no instance has any liberty been taken with the thought of a contributor. The editor has not sought to harmonize the ideas of so many writers, and yet in very few instances will the opinions of one writer be found in direct conflict with those of another. The same subject is, in some cases, treated by two writers,
Edition: current; Page: [vi]
but from a somewhat different point of view, under titles almost identical; and in these cases the difference of title serves merely for convenience of reference.

A little familiarity with the work will satisfy the reader that the articles from French and German writers are as applicable in the United States as in France and Germany. There is no more a French or German or American political economy or political science than there is a German or French or American science of astronomy or chemistry. It would have been well, some may think, if all the articles had been supplied by American writers. No one, however, can regret that those not written by Americans are from the pens of the most eminent European writers, men like T. E. Cliffe Leslie, J. C. Bluntschli, Brater, Bastiat, Barthélmy Saint-Hilaire, Baudrillart, Chevalier, Clément, Coquelin, Coquerel, Finali, Joseph Garnier, Guizot, v. Holtzendorff, Horn, Paul Janet, Laboulaye, v. Mangoldt, de Molinari, de Quatrefages, Remusat, Roscher, J. B. Say, Léon Say, Jules Simon, Thiers, Wolowski, Wagner and Wirth. The fact that every article is signed by the writer of it, and that each writer is an authority on the subject on which he writes, gives to the work a value which it would not otherwise possess. This feature is, we feel confident, one which the reader will appreciate.

In no country in the world is the necessity of the study of political science and political economy greater than in the United States, in which every citizen is, directly or indirectly—through the medium of his vote—a legislator; and yet, in no great country, perhaps, has the study of politics as a science been so utterly neglected. Our experience as a people during the last decade has demonstrated how very important it is to lay before the great body of readers reliable works to which they may refer, when occasion requires, for the principles by which all great national questions are solved. The people of the United States for the past ten years, to go no farther back in their history, have been, so to speak, one great debating club, discussing such questions as the resumption of specie payments, contraction of the currency, inflation of the currency, money, paper money, the nature and cure of commercial depressions, the demonetization of silver, banks, savings banks, bi-metallism, the relations of capital and labor, the right of employment, socialism, communism, strikes, railroad policy, civil service, civil service reform, etc., etc. The thinking portion of the people have eagerly devoured whatever they could find on these topics.

Other questions equally important are springing up every year, both in the national and state legislatures, questions relating to interest, the hours of labor, taxation, temperance, etc. These and kindred questions are, or may very easily become, questions of practical politics, or of political economy as applied to politics. In the present work these and similar subjects can be found discussed, from the standpoint of the statesman and legislator, by the best minds of the age, each under its proper title and in alphabetical order.

We think that the time at which our work appears is peculiarly opportune, for never before was the attention of the American people turned to questions of political science and political economy, more than now.

The publishers and editor desire to thank the contributors to this work for the readiness with which they accepted the invitation to write for its pages; and the unselfish interest they have one and all manifested in its success. Our acknowledgments, however, are due in a special manner to Mr. Horace White, of New York; to Mr. A. R. Spofford, Librarian of Congress; to Mr. Edward Atkinson, of Boston; to Mr. John Jay Knox, Comptroller of the Currency, and to Mr. Max. Eberhardt, of Chicago.

VOLUME I: Abdication - Duty

A

ABDICATION

ABDICATION, the renunciation of sovereign, monarchical or imperial power. It would seem natural that a prince, weary of the burdens and even of the pleasures of government, should have the right to lay down his crown and end his days in the repose of private life. It seems just as natural that he should have the right to leave the throne, of his own free will, when military reverses, the disaffection of his people, or other causes, render his abdication useful or necessary to the general well-being of the state. History gives us an account of many abdications, some of which are still fresh in the minds of men. These important acts, if not always accomplished with the consent of the nation affected by them, have been generally considered an exercise of right on the part of sovereigns. Many publicists, however, have thought proper to justify them, by advancing reasons which, in most cases are weak enough. There are authors, on the other hand, who have denied to princes the right of abdication, but, with few exceptions, it has been denied only by the opponents of kingly power. Their chief objections may be summed up as follows 1. According to natural law, a king has not the right to abdicate, because he has not the right to reign. In other words: We deny that a prince has the right to reign; therefore he has no right to abdicate. A thing or a right is not wiped out simply because it pleases me to assert that neither the one nor the other exists. We see nothing in natural law (by which we mean law conformable to human nature) opposed to monarchy. We even find arguments somewhat in favor of this form of government. Besides, we might ask: Where is your code of natural law? who drew it up? who has accepted it? where is it in force? 2. Constitutional kings can reign only with the formal consent of the nation, or its representatives, there being here a question of a mutual agreement which can he dissolved only with the consent of both parties. To this it may be answered that this consent would never be wanting, since the nation has every interest not to retain on the throne a prince who has weighty reasons for wanting to leave it. We find this argument altogether out of place in the mouths of men or from the pens of writers who maintain that a nation has always the right to set aside a king. What in this case becomes of the mutual agreement? How prohibit one party doing what the other claims a right to do? 3. From the point of view of divine right, abdication is unlawful, for the reason that the prince having been invested with supreme power by an act not of his own volition, can not, of his own motion, divest himself of that power. Various arguments may be used to refute this objection, which, be it remarked, does not come from the legitimist side. But if the refutation is to have full force, we must remain at the divine-right point of view. All that follows from investiture by divine right is that the nation can not dethrone its prince legally. But if monarchy is a divine institution, it follows that it is the monarch's duty to leave nothing un-done to accomplish his mission, even to disappearing from the scene when it seems to him that the public interest demands that sacrifice from him. These are the chief objections brought forward against the right of abdication. In England the right of abdication is denied to the king, but it does not appear whether in the name of the constitution or of divine right. We simply find the following axiom: "The king of England may not abdicate except with the consent of parliament." When we ask why he may not,
Edition: current; Page: [2]
the only answer we get is, that an abdication made at his sole instance would be inconsistent with the nature of the royal function. This is assertion, not argument. Should an English king abdicate, what would be the consequence? We have no doubt that parliament would take cognizance of the fact and sanction it as perfectly conformable to natural law. We here give a list of the abdications most remarkable for their causes, their results, or the name of the sovereign who laid down his crown. Among the Roman emperors, Diocletian and Maximianus put aside the purple in 305. In France it suffices to mention Napoleon I. (1814 and 1815), Charles X. (1830), and Louis Philippe (1848). In Germany Charles V. exchanged the imperial and royal crowns for the habit of a monk (1556). In 1848 the emperor of Austria preferred his ease to the struggles with which the events of that time threatened him. Successors of Charles V. in Spain abdicated for several reasons, Philip V. in 1724 and Charles IV. in 1808. The dynasty of Savoy affords more numerous examples of abdication: Amadeus, in 1494; Victor Amadeus, in 1750; Charles Emmanuel, in 1802; Victor Emmanuel I., in 1819; Charles Albert, in 1849. In Poland we find, since the abdication of the prince who afterwards became Henry III. of France, that of Augustus in 1707; Augustus Stanislas, in 1735; and Poniatowski, in 1795. All are familiar with the abdication of Queen Christina of Sweden, in 1654. That of Richard II. of England (1399), is not so well remembered. As to James II., he did not formally abdicate, but the English parliament declared, in 1688, that he "having endeavored to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between king and people; and, by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant." There was, in this case, a lively discussion as to whether the word "desert" or "abdicate" should be used. To sum up, we may mention the abdication of King Louis of Holland in 1810, of Louis of Bavaria in 1848, of the Hohenzollern Princes in favor of Prussia in 1849, and of the Duke of Saxe Altenburg in favor of his brother in 1849. Abdication is performed generally by a solemn act, and almost always in favor of the natural heir; but it is not always voluntary, and history shows us that it is often followed by regret. (See RESIGNATION.)

MAURICE BLOCK.

ABOLITION AND ABOLITIONISTS

ABOLITION AND ABOLITIONISTS (in U. S. HISTORY). I. GRADUAL ABOLITION (1776-1830). At the beginning of our national history abolition was a desire rather than a purpose, a matter of sentiment rather than of endeavor. In this sense every humane and thinking man, north or south, was an abolitionist. It would be waste of space to quote the words of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Mason, Laurens, and other southerners, in order to show the drift of feeling in the south on this subject. All concurred in deploring the existence of slavery in their section, and in hoping that in some way not yet imagined its gradual and peaceful abolition would finally be accomplished. In the north the feeling was the same, except that the Quakers, or Society of Friends, had, since 1760, taken higher ground, and had made slave-holding and slave-trading matter for church discipline. In 1777 Vermont, not yet admitted to the Union, formed a state constitution abolishing slavery. State constitutions were formed by Massachusetts, including Maine, in 1780, and by New Hampshire in 1783, which the courts at once construed as abolishing slavery. Gradual abolition was secured by statute in Pennsylvania in 1780, in Rhode Island and Connecticut in 1784, in New York in 1799, and in New Jersey in 1804. Abolition of slavery in the Northwest territory, north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi, including the present states of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota, was secured by the ordinance of 1787. Here the process of abolition ceased for a long time, except that in 1817 New York totally abolished slavery after July 4, 1827, and that slavery in part of the Louisiana purchase, including the present states of Iowa, Oregon, Kansas, Nebraska, a part of Colorado, and part of Minnesota, was abolished by the Missouri compromise (see COMPROMISES, IV, V), whose validity was rejected by the supreme court (see DRED SCOTT CASE); but the provision for abolition was embedded in the state constitutions of the states named as they were severally admitted. In process of time gradual abolition took effect in the states which had adopted it by statute, but so slowly that there were, in 1840, 674 slaves in New Jersey, 331 in Illinois, 64 in Pennsylvania, and from 1 to 17 in Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Wisconsin, respectively. In 1850 slavery had disappeared in all these states except New Jersey, which still had 236 slaves in 1850 and 18 in 1860, the latter number being "apprentices for life," under the state act of April 18, 1846. In 1831-32 the insurrection of Nat Turner excited a strong desire for gradual abolition in Virginia, which was with great difficulty smothered after a three weeks' debate in the legislature.

—ABOLITION SOCIETIES, based on the idea of gradual abolition, were formed in Pennsylvania in 1774, in New York in 1785, in Rhode Island in 1786, in Maryland in 1789, in Connecticut in 1790, in Virginia in 1791, and in New Jersey in 1792. These societies held annual conventions, and their operations were viewed by the more humane slave-holders with some favor, since they aimed at nothing practical or troublesome, except petitions to congress, and served as a moral palliative to the continuance of the practice. The abolition of the African slave-trade by Great Britain in 1807, and by the United States in 1808, came as a great relief to the abolition
Edition: current; Page: [3]
societies, which had grown discouraged by the evident impossibility of effecting anything in the south, and were now ready to accept this success as the limit of possibility for the present. Their annual national meetings became more infrequent and soon ceased altogether, though some state branches remained alive.

—COLONIZATION SOCIETY. In 1801 Jefferson and Governor James Monroe, of Virginia, had considerable correspondence on the subject of colonizing free blacks out of the country. In the autumn of 1816 a society for this purpose was organized in Princeton, N. J. Dec. 23, 1816, by resolution, the Virginia legislature commended the matter to the attention of the general government, and a few days afterwards the society was re-organized at Washington as the "National Colonization Society," its president being Bushrod Washington, and its organ, "The African Repository." Its expressed object was to encourage emancipation by procuring a place outside of the United States, preferably in Africa, to which free negroes could be aided in emigrating. Its indirect object was to rid the south of the free black population, which had already become a nuisance. Its branches spread into almost every state, and for fourteen years its organization was warmly furthered by every philanthropist in the south as well as in the north. Henry Clay, Charles Carroll and James Madison, in the south, were as hearty colonizationists as Bishop Hopkins, Rufus King, President Harrison and Dr. Channing, in the north. And it is noteworthy that, although the society made no real attack on slavery, as an institution, nearly every person noted after 1831 as an abolitionist was before that year a colonizationist. Benjamin Lundy's travels through North America were for the purpose of finding a location for a free black colony in Texas or elsewhere in Mexico. James G. Birney was for some time the society's agent and superintendent for Alabama and Tennessee. Gerrit Smith, the Tappans, and many others, began their career as colonizationists and ended it as abolitionists.

—LIBERIA. At first free negroes were sent to the British colony of Sierra Leone. In 1820 the society tried and became dissatisfied with Sherbroke Island, and Dec. 15, 1821, a permanent location was purchased at Cape Mesurado. In 1847 the colony declared itself an independent republic under the name of Liberia, its capital being Monrovia.

—II. IMMEDIATE ABOLITION (1830-60). In 1829-30 William Lloyd Garrison, a Massachusetts printer, engaged with Lundy in publishing "The Genius of Universal Emancipation," at Baltimore, flung a fire-brand into the powder magazine so long covered by the decorous labors of colonization and gradual abolition societies. He insisted on immediate abolition, meaning thereby not instant abolition so much as the use of every means at all times toward abolition without regard to the wishes of slave-owners. The effects were almost immediately apparent. Abolition, with its new elements of effort and intention, was no longer a doctrine to be quietly and benignantly discussed by slave-owners, and from 1830 the name of abolitionist took a new and aggressive significance. Garrison's first efforts were directed against the colonization society. Jan. 1, 1831, he began publishing "The Liberator," in Boston, and through its pages converted so many colonizationists, that the "New England Anti-Slavery Society," founded on "immediate" abolition, was formed Jan. 1, 1832. In 1833 Garrison visited England, and secured from Wilberforce, Zachary Macaulay, Daniel O'Connell, and other English abolitionists, a condemnation of the colonization society. In December, 1833, the "American Anti-Slavery Society" was formed in Philadelphia by an abolition convention, Beriah Green being president, and Lewis Tappan and John G. Whittier, secretaries. From this time the question became of national importance. Able and earnest men, such as Theodore D. Weld, Samuel J. May, and Wendell Phillips, traversed the northern states as the agents of the national society, founding state branches and lecturing everywhere on abolition. The consequent indignation in the south found a response in the north with many who saw that the south would never willingly accept "immediate" abolition, and that the continuance of the abolition agitation would involve sectional conflict, and perhaps a convulsion which would destroy the Union. Abetted or tacitly countenanced by this class, a more ignorant and violent class at once began to break up abolition meetings by mob violence. In Connecticut, in 1833, Miss Prudence Crandall, of Canterbury, Windham county, opened her school to negro girls. The legislature, by act of May 24, 1833, forbade such schools, and Miss Crandall was imprisoned under the act. As this was ineffectual, she was ostracized by her neighbors, and finally, by arson and violence, her school was broken up. In the autumn of 1834 George Thompson, who had been instrumental in securing British emancipation in the West Indies, came to Boston, and for a year lectured through out the north. He was denounced as a paid agent of the British government for the destruction of the Union, was mobbed, and finally escaped from Boston in disguise, in November, 1835. For some years abolition riots were epidemic throughout the north. Nov. 7, 1837, Elijah P. Lovejoy, a Presbyterian minister, who had established an abolition newspaper in Alton, Ill., was mobbed and shot to death. May 17, 1838, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Hall, an abolitionist building, dedicated three days before, was burned by a mob. Abolition riots then became only sporadic, but never ceased entirely until 1861.

—In the south the import of the single word "immediate" was instantly perceived. By unofficial bodies rewards were offered for the capture of prominent abolitionists, a suspension of commercial intercourse with the north was threatened, and northern legislatures were called
Edition: current; Page: [4]
upon to put down abolition meetings by statute. Southern grand juries indicted several abolitionists, and, when the accused naturally declined to appear for trial, their extradition as "fugitives from justice" was demanded by the state governor, but without success. The anti-slavery society had been quick to take advantage of the United States mails as an easy and secure means of introducing its publications into the south, where the society's private agents would have had short shrift. Remonstrances were at once sent to the postmaster general against this use of the mails, and he, while he regretted his official inability to interfere, gave southern postmasters a strong hint that they would do well to settle the difficulty by rejecting abolitionist publications from the mails. President Jackson, in his message of Dec. 2, 1835, requested congress to pass a law forbidding the circulation of abolitionist publications in the mails. A bill to this effect was introduced in the senate, carried just far enough to compel Van Buren, a candidate for the presidency, to take open ground in its favor, and then lost. In its stead, the care of abolition documents was left, with excellent success, to the states and the post-masters.

—Congress, in accepting the District of Columbia, had re-enacted the whole body of Virginia and Maryland law, and thus left slavery in full existence; but few persons seem to have denied the power of congress to abolish slavery in the District at will. From February, 1833, a vast number of petitions were introduced, praying congress to abolish slavery in the District, and, after 1836, to abolish the "gag rules" by which the house had resolved to lay all such petitions on the table without consideration. (See ADAMS, J. Q.; PETITION.)

—The Garrisonian abolitionists were, from the first, the radical wing. They believed in no union with slave-holders; they declared the constitution "a league with death and a covenant with hell," on account of its slavery compromises, and for this reason refused to vote, hold office or recognize the government; they attacked the churches freely and angrily, for sympathy with slavery; they made the public speaking of female members a prominent part of their work; and woman's rights, free love, community of property, and every novel social theory, found among them the first and most sympathetic audience. Many who would willingly have joined in opposition to slavery, were repelled by dread of the odium, theological and social, consequent upon a public identification with Garrisonian license of thought, speech and action; and a large and growing element in the American anti-slavery society felt that its influence was thus impaired. In 1838 the annual report of the society made the suggestion that abolitionist candidates for office should be nominated and supported. On this convenient rock the society split into two parts in the following year. The political abolitionists, including Birney, the Tappans, Gerrit Smith, Whittier, Judge Jay, Edward Beecher, Thomas Morris, and others, seceded and left the original society name and organization to the Garrisonians, who at once became, in the opinion of the seceders, "a woman's rights, non-government, anti-slavery society." In 1840 the seceders organized the "American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society," and under this name prosecuted their work with more success than the original society of irreconcilables.

—THE LIBERTY PARTY. Nov. 13, 1839, a convention of abolitionists met at Warsaw, N. Y., and incidentally nominated James G. Birney for president, and Francis J. Lemoyne, of Pennsylvania, for vice-president. Birney had been a slave-holder in Kentucky and Alabama, and was now corresponding secretary of the national society. These nominations were confirmed by a national convention at Albany, April 1, 1840, mainly composed of New York delegates, which adopted the name of the "liberty party." The nominees declined the nomination, but received 7,059 votes in the presidential election of 1840, ranging from 42 in Rhode Island to 2,798 in New York. Liberty party tickets were now put forth in various local elections, and the political abolitionists went into training for the election of 1844. Aug. 30, 1844, the liberty party's national convention met at Buffalo. Clay had made public, Aug. 16, a temporizing letter to the effect that he "would be glad to see" Texas annexed at some future day. (See ANNEXATIONS, III). His letter cut off the slight previous possibility that the Buffalo convention might be induced to refrain from nominations. Birney and Thomas Morris, of Ohio, were nominated, and an active canvass was begun, quite as much against Clay as against Polk. In the presidential election of 1844, Birney and Morris received 62,300 votes, all in northern states, ranging from 107 in Rhode Island to 15,812 in New York. Had the Buffalo convention refrained from nominations this vote would have gone to Clay; at the least, it could not have gone to Polk. Clay would thus have had a popular majority in the Union, and the electoral votes of Michigan and New York would have gone to him instead of to Polk, giving Clay 146 and Polk 129 electoral votes. The liberty party's first appearance in national politics had therefore resulted in the election of Polk, the annexation of Texas, and the addition of a vast amount of slave soil to the United States. But it seems also to have convinced the thinking abolitionists that a union of the northern voters in favor of abolition, pure and simple, was, as yet, impossible. Slavery restriction, the exclusion of slavery from the territories lately acquired from Mexico, offered a more promising field, and the abolitionists, therefore, in the next two presidential elections voted the ticket of the free-soil party. In 1856 and subsequent years, they followed the fortunes of the republican party, which was also based on slavery restriction, but they always retained a semi-detached organization, acting
Edition: current; Page: [5]
rather as auxiliaries than as an integral portion of the republican party.

—UNDERGROUND RAIL-ROAD. During the period 1850-60 the most active exertions of the abolitionists were centred in assisting fugitive slaves to reach places of safety in Canada. (See FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS.) From the border of the slave states to Canada, chains of communication were formed by persons living about a day's journey apart. These were constantly engaged in secreting runaways, providing them with outfits and passing them on to the next post, or in bringing back intelligence of those who had already escaped. In addition to these duties, committees in the larger cities were busied in providing for the rescue, by law or by force, of captured slaves from the hands of the officers. The whole organization was commonly known as the "Underground Railroad."

—III. FINAL ABOLITION (1810-65). The secession of a number of southern states in 1860-61, and the establishment of a de facto government in the south, was welcome to the extreme abolitionists, who rejoiced to be rid of the slave-holders and of political union with them. But the first shock of actual warfare brought to the surface an intense determination throughout the north and west that secession should not be allowed to become an accomplished fact. The ensuing war (see REBELLION) was begun in the spirit of the congressional resolution of July, 1861, that the war "was not prosecuted with the purpose of interfering with the established institutions of the southern states." But the southern leaders had not taken into account the fact that their system of slavery offered a fair mark for confiscation by an enemy which they could in no way retaliate. This species of warfare was early begun by the federal government. The act of Aug. 6, 1861, forfeited all claim, by the master, to the services of slaves employed in arms or labor against the government. This was not strictly a confiscation, but only a bar to proof of ownership. No blow at slavery, as an institution, was intended, and when proclamations abolishing slavery were issued by Gen. J. C. Fremont, in Missouri, Aug. 30, 1861, and by Gen. David Hunter, in South Carolina, May 9, 1862, they were promptly disavowed by the president. But the next session of congress, 1861-62, saw a more decidedly anti-slavery feeling. An additional article of war, March 13, 1862, prohibited the army from returning fugitive slaves; various other acts were passed to hinder the rendition of fugitive slaves in the northern states; slavery in the territories (see WILMOT PROVISO) was abolished, June 19; and the act of July 17 freed the captured, deserted or fugitive slaves of all persons engaged in rebellion, and authorized the employment of negro soldiers. The fugitive slave laws were not finally abolished until June 28, 1864. In all these provisions no invasion of slavery as a state institution was made; all were meant as blows at the tender spot of the confederacy.

—The president's own wish was at first for compensated emancipation, and, in accordance with his special message of March 6, a joint resolution of April 10, 1862, declared that the United States ought to co-operate with any state which should adopt gradual "abolishment" of slavery, by paying the state for the slaves emancipated. The act of April 16, 1862, abolished slavery in the District of Columbia on this principle; but the border states were deaf to the repeated entreaties of the president up to the close of the session of congress in July. In September the president, yielding to the growing anti-slavery feeling in the north, issued his preliminary proclamation, followed, Jan. 1, 1863, by the emancipation proclamation. But this, by its terms, did not affect the slaves in loyal states, or within the federal lines, nor did it affect the principle of slavery even in the rebellious states. Had the war ended without further action against slavery, every slave in the rebellious states would, indeed, have been a free man, but there would have been no bar to the immediate importation of fresh supplies of slaves from the states where slavery had not been abolished.

—In his message of Dec. 1, 1862, the president again brought up his favorite project. He now recommended the adoption of three amendments to the constitution, providing (1) for the issue of bonds to compensate states which should abolish slavery before 1900; (2) for the validation of the emancipation proclamation and kindred measures; and (3) for colonizing free negroes out of the country. Bills to compensate Missouri and Maryland for abolishing slavery were introduced, by members from those states early in 1863, and received favorable votes in both houses; but the shortness of the session prevented their final passage. In West Virginia, by constitutional amendment adopted March 26, 1862, gradual emancipation after July 4, 1863, was secured. In Missouri the state convention, which had originally been called to consider an ordinance of secession, was re-convened, and passed, June 24, 1863, an ordinance of emancipation, taking effect gradually after July 4, 1870. Congress, by act of Feb. 24, 1864, emancipated negro soldiers, a compensation of $300 for each being paid to loyal owners, and by act of March 3, 1865, emancipation was extended to the wives and children of such soldiers. This measure closed the record of attempts at gradual, partial or compensated abolition of slavery.

—Oct. 12-13, 1864, Maryland adopted a new constitution whose 23d article finally abolished slavery in the state. Ordinances of immediate emancipation, without submission to popular vote, were passed Feb. 13, 1864, by a convention of delegates from those portions of Virginia within the federal lines, and, Jan. 11, 1865, by a new state convention in Missouri. A recapitulation of all these partial assaults on slavery will make it apparent that, after Jan. 11, 1865, slavery had a legal existence only in the states of Kentucky and Delaware, if the action of Maryland, secured by soldiers' votes, and of irregular
Edition: current; Page: [6]
conventions in Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana and Arkansas were valid. To resolve all doubts, and give the corpse of slavery a legal burial, a constitutional amendment in 1865 (see CONSTITUTION, IV.) was passed and ratified, by which slavery and involuntary servitude, except for crime, was abolished within the United States. The same year saw the cessation of the publication of "The Liberator," and the dissolution of the American anti-slavery society. The work of both had been done, and done mainly, after all, by the "political" abolitionists. By yielding the impossible point of present abolition in the States, and joining with the republicans in the demand for the restriction of slavery to state limits, they had aided in bringing on a conflict of a slave-holding section against the federal Union. In such a conflict it was inevitable that every blow at rebellion should rebound upon slavery. Had the conflict been postponed until the north and west could have been united in the ultra Garrisonian object of a crusade against slavery, it would not have come until the population and destructive power of both sections had grown so large that the peaceable formation of two or more nationalities on this continent would have been imperatively demanded by humanity. (See SLAVERY; EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION; REBELLION; UNITED STATES.)

—I. See Von Holst's United States, 277, etc.; Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power; Greeley's American Conflict; The African Repository; Jay's Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery; Earle's Life of Benjamin Lundy; Goodell's Slavery and Anti-Slavery. II. See Garrison's Speeches; May's Recollections; Johnson's Recollections; Gidding's Speeches in Congress, Exiles of Florida, and History of the Rebellion; Beriah Green's Sketch of Birney; Charles Osborn's Journal; Lovejoy's Life of Lovejoy; Tappan's Life of Tappan; Child's Life of Isaac T. Hopper; Frothingham's Life of Gerrit Smith; Gerrit Smith's Speeches in Congress; Still's Underground Railroad; and authorities under articles referred to. III. See Raymond's Life of Lincoln; Arnold's Life of Lincoln; Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; McPherson's Political History of the Rebellion; later authorities under REBELLION and SLAVERY; and authorities under EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION. For acts of Aug. 6, 1861; July 17, 1862, and April 16, 1862, see 12 Stat. at Large, 319 (§ 4); 589 (§§ 9-11); 376. For acts of Feb. 24, 1864, and March 3, 1865, see 13 Stat. at Large (38th Cong.), 6 (§ 24), 571. For final abolition of slavery in territories, see WILMOT PROVISO; in the Union, see CONSTITUTION, IV. (Amendment XIII).

ALEX. JOHNSTON.

ABSENTEEISM

ABSENTEEISM, an expression which has arisen out of the discussions on the miserable condition of the Irish people, and which, as its derivation shows, denotes the habitual absence of the landed proprietors of a country from their estates. From such absenteeism has naturally sprung a system of farming out these estates to intermediaries, which has proved in its consequences of ever increasing injury to the tenant. These absentee Irish proprietors grant long leases of their estates to rich English capitalists, who sublet at a profit to other speculators, commonly known as middlemen, and these latter, dealing directly with the tenants, sublet for short terms, and contrive, by the minutest possible subdivisions, so to in crease the number of bidders as to obtain for each holding the highest rental possible. Besides the effect of this feudal system of rack-rents in impoverishing the tenant to the last degree, the bulk of the rentals so accruing is annually exported without any return in exchange. No portion of such rentals is ever applied to the introduction of improved methods of agriculture, nor even to the development of either the manufacturing industries or the commercial enterprises of Ireland, as would naturally be the case were these proprietors themselves residenters. It is unquestionable, then, that absenteeism is one of the causes of the wretched condition of Ireland.

—The politico-economical effects of absenteeism are everywhere the same, and are more marked in Ireland only because more general there than elsewhere. All export of capital or of income, without any counter-balancing return, is hurtful to the country from which such capital is withdrawn, and beneficial to that to which it is exported; it takes from the one for the use of the other, the means for the maintenance of labor, for the improvement of the natural capacities of the soil, and for the accumulation of wealth; and these results are in exact proportion to the magnitude of the sums exported. Among the causes provocative of absenteeism may be cited a corrupt administration of public affairs, or too burdensome taxation. These and like causes have determined many English families to seek homes in other countries. They thus escape a taxation which in England is very great upon all articles of consumption, and hence the government, to obtain the same amount of revenue, has no alternative but to impose upon the resident classes those taxes which the non-residenters escape. Of all the factors which determine this emigration of capital, the most powerful is the feeling of insecurity. The political turmoils which at times so greatly unsettled the state of continental Europe, drove many families of wealth to seek a refuge in England, although the cost of living is greater there than anywhere else.

AMBROISE CLÉMENT.

ABSOLUTE POWER

ABSOLUTE POWER. The opinion that absolute power is essential to the state, is very prevalent among statesmen and publicists. They disagree, however, as to who should be invested with this absolute power, the executive or the people; but they agree in the opinion that it should be lodged somewhere. Without absolute power, they say, there is no peace, no unity in the state, no authority which is either final or supreme. Absolute power and sovereignty are sometimes
Edition: current; Page: [7]
called synonymous. There are whole families of nations, with which a high respect for absolute power seems to be a natural tendency, which submit to it willingly and without reserve. It is not simply the lower races of negroes which have submitted to an absolute ruler. The Mongolian race and the superior Semitic peoples even, favored an absolute form of government. And though the noblest nations, the Aryan, did not willingly submit to this form of government, and were jealous of it, they still have shown similar tendencies, both in theory and practice. The democratic Greeks sought the most perfect political freedom in an absolute government of the people. The aristocratic Romans, the first in the science of law, adhered, in the principles underlying their private and public laws, and by way of national preference, to the idea of absolute power. Individuals of great energy and superior intellect, when at the head of the government, are most apt to be provoked to resistance by any limit imposed to their universal authority, and seek to justify their action whenever they overstep the limit imposed, by an appeal to the necessity of absolute power. Instances of a leaning toward absolute power are, therefore, frequently met with in the history of modern European states, and were the causes provocative of a great many political events. And it is not always bad men who incline toward absolutism.

—What is the meaning of absolute power? Absolute, in the full sense of the word, means freedom from all limitation. Really, there is nothing absolute but what is without beginning and end; a beginning and an end are limitations. The truly absolute, therefore, can be predicated only of a being unlimited and infinite, that is, only of God. Hence, absolute power, in the real sense of the word, can be conceived only as divine omnipotence. Absolute law is the law of God.

—All human law, on the other hand, is necessarily limited, because its condition precedent, what it supposes, man, is a limited being. Absolute power can not be attributed to man, because the limits of human nature render it impossible to attribute such power to him.

—In this extreme sense men have but seldom understood absolute power, and hardly ever claimed it. They understood and claimed this power in that extreme sense only when they regarded their ruler in the light of a divine being. A great many rulers of antiquity were worshiped as gods, and many of them may have felt themselves gods. Wherever polytheism prevailed, the people took little umbrage at this deification of man. And even where polytheism did not prevail, a people inclined to pantheism might worship certain heroes and princes as a temporary incarnation of the Deity. Even in our day such ideas have not totally disappeared. But as far as the more civilized nations and European nations are concerned, we need not fear that they will thus mistake the eternal God for man. The fiction of human omnipotence is, in our opinion, too ludicrous to serve as the basis of any political right. We know, indeed, that possessors of power, be they king or people, have a broader vision and exercise greater power than private persons, since they can command the services of many. But we know too well that the perception of those in power is subject to the limits of human vision; that there are some things it can not reach, and that they are subject in all their action to the same limitations as other men, and can neither change God's creation in any essential particular, nor even create the smallest organic being.

—All human law or rights, and consequently the absolute power which man can claim, is necessarily limited: (a) By the divine law. Since man, as a creature, supposes the Creator, and always depends on God, he must recognize the divine law as superior to him, and as conditioning human law. The divine law is really absolute, because it proceeds from the absolute Spirit and is infinite. Man can not even think of the divine law as non-existing; still less can he break its power. Whether he will or not, he remains subject to the great law of nature, and to the law of the divine guidance of the world. He can not do away with the order of the world any more than with the elements, nor with-draw himself from the irresistible power of time. (b) By the limited physical nature of man, from which human law, because it pertains to the visible, earthly order of things, can not be separated. These limits may be disregarded in individual cases, but they can not be removed nor argued away. When, therefore, as in recent times, it is claimed that absolute power is necessary, those who approve it seek to introduce it into the state in a covert manner, and to moderate it by the recognition of the above limits. They admit that absolute law or right is not of human origin, and they give it a divine source. God, according to this view, has invested man with the right of absolute rule for the purpose of securing and maintaining social order, and has raised human rulers to the dignity of his representatives and plenipotentiaries. To this extent, therefore, they claim that man may properly exercise absolute power. This view is a dangerous one in this age, because it mixes the true and the false so adroitly that it may easily mislead the unthinking. While maintaining an appearance of reverence for God, who alone possesses absolute power, it seeks to secure to the sovereign the most unlimited power possible. It protests against human assumption, and still would reap the fruits of that assumption. It will not allow a ruler to make himself a god, but puts him in the place of God, and encourages him to entertain the strange delusion that his thoughts and actions are under divine control, in a manner different from the thoughts and actions of other men. It derives the absolute power of man from God, and, with due humility, recognizes the dependence of man on his Maker, while it encourages, in the mind of the ruler, the insolent idea that he only exercises the power possessed by God before He delegated it to him. In the actual exercise of his powers the sovereign is thus raised
Edition: current; Page: [8]
to a level with the Deity, infinitely above the rest of mankind who are certainly his equals and not his creatures. The errors of this view are therefore essentially the same as if divine power were ascribed to man. Man can have rights and exercise power only within the limits of his nature.

—To the extent that God confides the exercise of divine right to man, He, by confiding it to him, confides it to a being with all the limitations of human nature, and hence the right so confided is changed from one absolute and divine into one human and limited. If this be not admitted, the human ruler arrogates to himself a power which can be but a source of evil to him, for the reason that it is not in human nature to exercise such power. By giving his limited freedom the dimensions of divine power, he becomes the plaything of his own caprices; and the person who knows how to influence these, has the ruler under his control.

—Absolute power, as thus defined, is most frequently advocated in Europe by absolutist parties, and there is a close relationship between such absolutism and these parties. Yet this idea of absolutism is not peculiar to absolutists, nor is it held by all absolutists. Neither is the political character of absolutism fully described by this definition.

—But the term absolute power is frequently used to express limited power wielded by man. We call those forms of government absolute in which the sovereign is the sole source, representative and dispenser of power—though that power may be limited in its nature—and not obliged to secure, by virtue of a constitutional provision, the co-operation and consent of others to his measures (especially of legislative bodies, ministers and counselors), nor limited in the exercise of his power by the rights—those of a political nature at least—of others. It is evident that of such absolute power there are different grades. In proportion as the recognized limitations of absolute power are increased, the absolutism of that power itself diminishes. It is admitted that this power is political in its nature, and hence is subject to the same limitations as the state itself. And just here we notice, with increasing civilization and the growing maturity of the human race, a deeper insight into the natural limitations of the state, its functions and its laws, an insight which has in no way weakened the power of the state. To the limitations already noticed we may add the following: (1) The limitation, unknown to the Romans, which is represented by the Church, whose religious authority is independent of the state, and which is freely recognized as an independent institution by all civilized governments. (2) The limitation of international law, which sees to it that the different states may co-exist side by side—a limitation the extent of which increases in proportion to the increasing solidarity of mankind. (3) Private law, which defines the rights of individuals, of the family, and of corporations, and which, though it is the duty of the government to regulate and protect it, is not in its nature the product of the will of the state, and whose changes are determined by the freedom of private individuals. (4) By the special nature and history of the people living in a state, and of the country they control. There have been, and still are, states in which, though all these limitations were recognized, absolute power was claimed for the central organ of government. And such was the case, not in absolute monarchies only, but also in absolute aristocracies and in absolute democracies. It can not be said that this idea of absolute power is so monstrous as the idea of absolute power spoken of in the first place above. A peaceful observance and a just administration of the law are reconcilable with the present idea of absolute power. The sovereign is not imagined to be a god or a fetich; he may be conscious of his own human nature and its limitations, and have an honest intention of faithfully discharging his duties to God and his fellow-men.

—We are obliged to admit, indeed, that in certain cases such a close concentration of all the powers of government in the hands of one man may be needful, and hence justifiable. Nations of inferior races need the absolute rule of a superior prince, or of nobler races, in order to enjoy life in peace, or to attain a higher grade of civilization. Such inferior races frequently have neither the desire nor the means of limiting the power of their rulers. Most of the Asiatic and African nations, and those in the northeast of Europe, are subject to this sort of absolute governmental power, and the doctrinarian introduction of constitutional limitations would render their condition worse rather than improve it.

—But to the more masculine and energetic people of a higher type, among whom there is also an aristocratic element, and among whom even the lower classes have a sense of justice and honor, the absolute form of government is, as a rule, unsuitable and intolerable. They can not bear the thought that all political rights accorded them are simply the gifts of royal grace. Having a knowledge of their own moral worth, and of the fact that they contribute to the welfare and share the fortunes of the state to which they belong, they can not understand why they should have political duties without also having political rights. And although they admit that the sovereign is entitled to share the highest prerogatives, and such a degree of political power as the unity of the state requires, they do not admit that the sovereign should enjoy all rights, and that the rest of the body politic should have none. They know that in an organism every one of its members, be it ever so inferior, has a significance of its own, and hence certain rights; and that, though the head may control the hands and feet, its control is limited by the power inherent in the latter, and that its rule over them can not, therefore, be absolute.

—The humane state, in harmony with what is noblest in human nature—the civilized state—though it requires an efficient central power, has no tendency toward absolute, that is, unlimited, political power, as against which the political
Edition: current; Page: [9]
rights of others count for nothing, and which is not controlled by some sort of limitation. It is only in exceptional cases, in times of great public danger, that the government seeks its own protection in the temporary exercise of absolute power. Threatened by the military force of a foreign enemy, or greatly agitated by party struggles,—exhausted and alarmed by outbursts of revolutionary passion,—nations even by whom freedom is highly prized may demand that protection which none but a dictator can give. When, in times of great need, the concentration of all public power in the hands of one man to save the nation becomes necessary, and when the confidence of the people in some great prince or soldier from whom help is expected is such as to remove all objections which can rightly be raised against a dictatorship, masculine nations grant absolute power to one man or else approve it, even when that one man assumes that power of his own motion. But the danger over, public order and peace re-established, the people again claim the free exercise of their political rights and privileges. The rule, therefore, in relation to civilized states is: Nowhere in the state should there be absolute power, while all power exercised should be regulated by law and defined by constitutional limitations. The exception to this rule is: In cases of actual necessity and great public danger, the sovereign power of the government, in answer to that necessity, may become absolute.

—Whenever, in modern times, nations have shown a tendency toward absolute power, it was either because they believed it to be necessary for the removal of obsolete institutions, or for the promotion of freedom and reform; or because the people, in their struggle for a liberal system of government, yielded to the despotism of their terrorizing leaders, or because they were compelled to seek, for the time being, the protection of a dictator, to re-establish public order, or to defend the government against domestic or foreign enemies. In such cases the principle of constitutional freedom and the public order were the object of the struggle. Absolute power was used as a means to these ends, or suffered by the people to gain new strength for the work of progress and reform. Absolute power was nowhere the ideal people desired to see realized. Wherever it has been sought to be permanently established, the attempt has been, among the civilized nations of our age, unsuccessful. The character of our age demands an efficient and energetic government, but at the same time insists that its powers shall be limited, and exercised with moderation. The people of our age are not willing to submit to absolute power beyond the actual necessities of the case. A government which tries to secure absolute power for any purpose other than the maintenance of public order and a free exercise of its organic functions, is at war with the spirit of the age, and thereby endangers its own existence.

MAX. EBERHART, Tr.
J. C. BLUNTSCHLI.

ABSOLUTISM

ABSOLUTISM.1 This word is generally used to describe a form of government in which the head of the state wields power without any regular control, and without any limits imposed to his power by political institutions. Absolutism is found outside of monarchies, as in an aristocracy, a democratic legislature with a single house, or an assembly of the people in a very small state, where the majority unite in themselves all power. These are all examples of absolutism. As a rule, however, when absolutism is mentioned we have almost always a monarchy in view. A distinction is made between absolutism and despotism in this, that an absolute monarch may be naturally well disposed and inclined to remain within the bounds of law, or what is relatively legal, while the despot respects no law, and acts according to his caprice without regard to the interests of the people. There may be partisans of absolutism, but who would confess to any indulgence for despotism?

—If we seek for arguments in favor of absolute monarchy, we can find scarcely anything more solid than sentiment, and a certain distortion of sentiment called mysticism. To speak of a divine gift of paternal authority is mysticism. Who in our day is not convinced that government exists for the good of the nation, and that men were not created that a king may have numerous servants and dependents. If, however, mysticism sometimes favors absolutism, there are other feelings which are shocked at the thought of having a master, and it is these feelings that constitute the dignity of human nature.

—The only rational argument in favor of this form of government is found in the political immaturity or backwardness of certain nations. It is said that barbarous people need a strong hand to restrain them; but why should a barbarous or semi-civilized nation need a stronger government than a people altogether savage, who frequently recognize no authority at all? There is no logical necessity here. Should it happen to a barbarous people to fall into the hands of a man of genius, a monarch in advance of his subjects, of course a great advantage would result; they would be urged forward with vigor and intelligence in the path of progress. This, however, would be but chance, a happy accident, and would furnish no argument in favor of the system. What nation with even a pretense to civilization cares to be called barbarian?

—Let us now see if absolute power is really exercised anywhere in political life. It seems to us that it is not. We find checks and limits to the human will on every side, and the most powerful of these checks comes from the will of others. Sometimes these restraints are evident; again they are occult, and are felt only instinctively; but they always exist.

—According to the degree of civilization
Edition: current; Page: [10]
of a state, power, unrestricted by law, is limited in various ways. On the one hand, by manners, customs and traditions; on the other, by religion; still again, by the fear of revolt or the vengeance of the injured. In the most enlightened countries, public opinion exercises, at times, an influence which can not be gainsaid. It is so difficult to rise above: "What will they say?"

—Thus far we have discussed absolute power in the hands of a monarch, but it may also be exercised by collective governing bodies, either aristocratic or democratic.

—When absolute power is the attribute of an aristocracy, it becomes odious sooner than in any other form of government. First of all, because it enters more quickly into the period of abuse, and because, if in an absolute monarchy the sovereign with his favorites and devoted servants may commit much wrong, they can not do so much in this direction as aristocratic families with their hangers-on and partisans. It is often the case that these dominant families are descended from conquerors belonging to another nationality and a different religion, that they are distinguished by the color of their skin or other external marks. In this case, these families have, on the one hand, a greater tendency to abuse their power and become tyrants, and on the other, the subject populations are less inclined to give them credit even for the good they receive from their government. An aristocracy as a collective body is less influenced by the restraints which limit the excesses of absolute monarchs; they fear the loss of power less.

—In a democracy, absolute power seems to be the just and natural attribute of government. Is not this government the result of election? Does it not perfectly represent the will of the nation? Is it not theoretically, at least, responsible to the nation?

—Still, absolute power is, in every case, too weighty a burden to be easily borne by men. While a despot may allow the reins of power to drop from his feeble hands to see them picked up by some favorite, a representative assembly may often be led into excess by even a generous sentiment, and thereby still further increase the burden on its shoulders. Absolute power in democratic governments is not altogether rational except when the government is elected unanimously. In that case each man would be the subject of his own will or of the power which he himself created. In practice, this never takes place, for majorities govern and often oppress minorities. They oppress them with the less scruple since they are the majority and have the letter of the law on their side.

—The question may be put whether the nation itself has absolute power over one of its own members. The assertion, pure and simple, of such a principle would seem revolting in our day, although eminent men have upheld a doctrine which favor this view. To admit the absolute power of a nation is to justify religious persecution, slavery, and many other horrors with which humanity has stained its annals.

—From deduction to deduction we have come implicitly to the question whether laws can command absolute obedience. We shall not give a definite answer to this question here, for we are not writing a treatise on casuistry. We have not to seek for the special cases in which a nation uses or abuses its power, nor in what cases the abuse should be submitted to and suffered. We shall say, simply, that we owe some sacrifice to society in exchange for the benefits which we receive from it. But the measure of the sacrifice must be found by each man in his own conscience. (See DESPOTISM, TYRANNY.)

MAURICE BLOCK.

ABSTENTION

ABSTENTION. This word was formerly employed in the civil law, and was synonymous with renunciation of the right of inheritance. It is now used only in a political sense, and means the renunciation of the exercise of one's rights.

—Abstention is resorted to by political parties in a minority. These parties, sometimes, seeing that their efforts to bring about the triumph of their views are fruitless, feel loath to allow their adversaries to witness their defeat. Sometimes they propose to protest against oppression, real or imaginary. At such times they think that by voting they recognize the rightfulness of the act or of the government which they oppose.

—Abstention is likewise resorted to in cases arising from a conflict of duties, feelings or interests.

—We would call attention only to the case in which persons abstain from voting through neglect. An abstention so causeless and even so culpable can not be justified.

—Can abstention by a political party be justified? We think not. In the first place, it is a species of self-annulment, a kind of political suicide, which can no more be excused than the act of taking one's own life. Besides, by retiring from the field, a party loses the chance of gaining an advantage by a sudden change in public opinion. By taking a part in political movements, by mingling with his fellow-citizens at election times, and by presenting himself as a candidate for their votes, a man may expect to propagate his political views with more or less success, and to exercise some influence on the destiny of his country. One owes his country not only his blood, but his self-devotion and his talent.

—To the orator who remains silent, we might say: If you had spoken, we should perhaps have yielded to your arguments. You have no right to question the intelligence, the loyalty and the patriotism of your fellow-citizens, even when they profess opinions opposed to your own. What right have you to consider yourself infallible? Are you very sure that our reply would not have convinced you of your error, and converted you to our way of thinking?

—We might remind those who practice abstention—which generally happens in special cases—on account of a conflict of duties or interests, of the law of Solon, which provided that every citizen should decide in favor of one or other of the parties of the country, because abstention often prolongs intestine
Edition: current; Page: [11]
struggles. Besides, it is seldom that after sifting things to the bottom, we do not find that one or other of these duties or interests should prevail. Under these circumstances, the failure to come to a decision is an evidence of intellectual indolence.

—In conflicts of feeling or sentiment, if patriotism is at stake, there can be no doubt as to which side one should take. Did Brutus hesitate between patriotism and paternal love? A private citizen may hesitate; a public man, never: noblesse oblige.

—It is apparent that we do not approve abstention in any case, and we seldom see cases in which it can be excused. Sometimes we are forced to look upon it as a weakness, and for weakness there can be only pity.

MAURICE BLOCK.

ABUSES IN POLITICS

ABUSES IN POLITICS. Abuses are a consequence of human weakness. No form of government, no organization can prevent them altogether. The more ignorant a people, the more frequent abuses are. If, instead of being supposed to know the law, every man really knew it, he would vindicate his rights and obtain justice, in the majority of cases. The fear of having a complaint entered by the injured party would of itself prevent many abuses. Unfortunately there is a certain amount of inertia in us all, which prevents the seeking of reparation, whenever the damage done us is not very great. Sometimes, it is true, we are inspired by a laudable feeling of forbearance when the question is one of fact, and that an isolated one; but when it is a question of principle or of precedent, it is the duty of every man to defend his own rights as well as the rights of those who are injured in his person.

BLOCK.

ABYSSINIA

ABYSSINIA, an extensive country of eastern Africa, in the upper valley of the Nile. It is bounded on the north by Nubia; on the east by Adel, and by a narrow belt of Arab coast land washed by the Red sea; on the south and southwest by almost unexplored regions; and on the west by lands which are little known to us, and inhabited by negro tribes. Its length from north to south may be 540 geographical miles; its breadth from east to west is about the same as its length. Approximately its area is equal to, if not larger than, that of France. The population is supposed to be nearly 4,500,000.

—Taken as a whole, Abyssinia is a great mountainous plateau which rises to a height of 8,000 feet or more above the level of the Red sea and the extensive plains of Adel. On the north and west, the plateau slopes toward the plains of Atbara; on the southwest it inclines toward the valley of the Bahr-el-Azrek or Blue river; on the south it extends in the direction of Kafa and Enarea, countries as yet but little known. Its surface, which is very uneven, presents a succession of plains of different elevations, of abrupt mountains and deep valleys. In the south there is a great depression containing a large lake known by the two names of Tzana and Dembéa. About its middle the plateau is cut in two, from west to east, by a broad fissure or furrow more than 2,000 feet deep, through which flow the tumultuous waters of the river Takkazze, one of the two great rivers of the Abyssinian plateau. The other river is the Abai, which in Nubia is called the Bahr-el-Azrek or Blue river. This cut between the north and the south of Abyssinia, establishes a natural division which, at different periods, was considered as a political line of demarkation, and which to a certain extent may also be called an ethnographical boundary. North of the Takkazze and as far as the sea-board the country is called Tigré. On the south it is called Amhara, of which Shoa, which was formerly an independent kingdom, is now a subdivision. The capital of Tigré was formerly Axoum. It is now Adowa. The capital of Amhara is Gondar; it is the residence of the emperors of Abyssinia. Ankobèr is the capital of Shoa. There are about 7,000 or 8,000 inhabitants in Ankobèr, and the same number in Adowa. Gondar may have twice that number.

—The Abyssinians divide their country into three natural parts: first the kolla or lower plains, then the déza or uplands, and the ouïnadéga or intermediary provinces. The lowlands, which are naturally the warmer, produce nearly all the vegetables and fruit trees grown in tropical countries, such as cotton, indigo, the gum tree, the ebony tree, the sugar-cane, the date tree, bananas, the coffee tree, etc. The lands in the middle part of the country have a temperature which may be likened to that of lower Italy and of the south of Spain. They readily produce most of the cereals, fruits and vegetables found in the temperate and the southern parts of Europe.

—With the exception of the gold washings in the extreme western and southwestern sections, the mineral wealth of Abyssinia, or the greater part of it, is still locked up in the recesses of the earth. Small squares of salt constitute the currency of the country. This salt comes mostly from the lagoons lying between the northeast top of the plateau and the beach of the Red sea.

—The inhabitants belong to several distinct races. The Semitic element, the immigration of which dates back to an unknown period, spread particularly over the Tigré country. Its language is called the Giz. This region was colonized by the Greeks who came to Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes. The so-called Ethiopian race is also spread over the Tigré; but it predominates almost exclusively in Amhara and the rest of the country. It presents striking points of resemblance to the Galla tribes in the southwest of Abyssinia, a remnant of the Berber nation which possessed northern Africa in ancient times, and whose origin has been so much mooted. Abyssinian society has adopted some of the manners and customs of civilized nations, while in other respects it still retains the barbaric usages of African tribes. The Abyssinians are Christians of the Greek rite. The Gallas are Mussulmans.

—In Abyssinia there are three remnants of civilization. The first was contemporaneous with ancient.
Edition: current; Page: [12]
Egypt, and was attributed by Herodotus to the Ethiopians. The Jews revived it. The Abyssinian dynasty is said to date back to Menilek, the son of Solomon and the legendary queen of Sheba. His descendants, it is related, reigned without interruption down to the eleventh century after Christ, when they were expelled by other Jewish kings who had not, like the descendants of Menilek, embraced Christianity. They were reinstated three centuries later. Their last descendant was living in 1840. The second civilization, introduced by the Greek kings of Axoum and by Christian missionaries of the fourth century, partook of the Greek and Egyptian character. The use of the Greek language became pretty general, at least among the higher classes. It was used in public inscriptions either alone or together with the Giz.

—In Abyssinia Christianity has neither hastened nor followed the progress of civilization. Like other countries subject to Greek empire, and still more on account of its remoteness, Abyssinia was left isolated, by the Mussulmans, from European civilization. Of the laws of Europe it has preserved only a few fragments of the Theodosian code.

—Abyssinian Christians are monophysites; in other words, they believe that there is only one nature in Jesus Christ. One of their confessions of faith is peculiarly Nestorian, like the confessions of nearly all the Christian churches in Asia. A Portuguese expedition overran Abyssinia in the sixteenth century, after which the Jesuits came and made three hundred thousand proselytes; but persecution soon blotted out every vestige of Catholicism in Abyssinia.

—The Abyssinian, like every other monarchy, has had its changes and its revolutions. Sometimes it extended its authority over the entire territory, and often it had to contend against independent chiefs. Subdivision of the country and a state of anarchy, favored by local circumstances and the difference of origin of the population, have been frequent during the last century and a half. Tigré and Shoa recognized, it is true, the nominal supremacy of the king or emperor, who resided at Goudar, in Amhara, but in reality they were independent of him. The emperor, or the Alié, had been gradually stripped of his authority by the Ras, a sort of mayor of the palace. But the Ras had to contend for the mastery over each province, with feudal chiefs, the most powerful among whom assumed the title of king (négous). Oubié rose to power in 1840. He had conquered nearly all Abyssinia, when he was defeated and killed by Kassa. The latter took the name of Theodore, and proclaimed himself the restorer of the ancient Abyssinian power. His intelligence seemed to be equal to his pretensions; but subsequently he lost much of his force of character in the exercise of his authority which was menaced, and in the struggle in which he imprudently engaged with England.

—In 1861, Négousieh, a relative of Oubié, proclaimed himself négous of Tigré. In Europe, Négousieh was thought to favor French influence in Abyssinia; while Theodore was looked upon as a friend of the English. Négousieh was vanquished and cruelly put to death by his rival. The triumph of the latter was considered, in Europe, the success of English policy, and England was supposed to entertain plans of colonization in Abyssinia.

—Suddenly the news was brought to England that king Theodore had imprisoned Mr. Cameron, the British consul, at Massowah, a small Arab town situated on the coast beyond the limits of Abyssinia. The consul had wished to negotiate a commercial treaty between Theodore and the English government, as Lefèvre had endeavored to do between Oubié and France, in 1840. Theodore had consented to the treaty, and had even sent a communication to the queen of England, not, as some have said, to offer her his hand in marriage, but to propose an alliance between England and Abyssinia (1863). Mr. Cameron was intrusted to carry the dispatch to England, but he brought back no answer. Besides, on his way, he had tarried among the Turks of Nubia, the hereditary enemies of the Abyssinians. Theodore caused him to be imprisoned, as also several English and German missionaries and their families. The British government, which up to that time had rather discouraged than encouraged intermeddling with Abyssinian affairs by Mr. Cameron, sent Mr. Rassam, bearer of a dispatch from the queen, to demand the liberation of the prisoners. At first Mr. Rassam was kindly received, and all the captives were set free in his presence. Afterward, suddenly, on account of some unexplained suspicion, Theodore caused to be put in irons all the Europeans in Abyssinia, together with the envoy himself (1866).

—It was then resolved to send an expedition to Abyssinia, for the sole purpose of obtaining reparation for this outrage against the law of nations. The expedition was prepared in India, which offered better resources than Europe to carry on a war in Africa. Between September and December, 1867, about 15,000 men were forwarded to Abyssinia. Sir Robert Napier, the commander of the expedition, demanded of Theodore the setting at liberty of the prisoners as the only condition of peace. Among the prisoners were 61 Europeans and 150 Abyssinians. Upon his refusal, one-third of the army of invasion was ordered to advance, across the table-lands and the precipices, to compel him into acquiesence, in the fortress of Magdala, where he had retired with the captives. On the 15th of March, 1868, 5,000 men appeared on the plateau of Dalanta, in front of the fortress. The army of Theodore which at first was 150,000 strong, had been reduced by desertion to 6,000 men. These 6,000 men attacked the English and were repulsed, leaving on the field of battle 2,000 of their number. The English had only 20 wounded, and not one killed. On the following day Theodore sued for peace on the terms proposed to him before the expedition, and which were refused. Then the king set free the European
Edition: current; Page: [13]
and put to death the Abyssinian captives, and when an assault was made on the fortress he took his own life. The English army retired from Abyssinia without broaching the subject of establishing themselves there. It was sufficient for them to renew the prestige of their arms, which enables them to rule in the East by the maintenance of only small armies.

—Neither nature nor man has adapted Abyssinia to commerce on a large scale. The surface of the country and the absence of navigable streams render communication with the interior very difficult. In the whole country there is not a single road which deserves the name of a highway. Each canton has its own market for daily needs. Foreign commodities are carried to Abyssinia every year by caravans between the coast and Amhara. There is a special demand for coarse but showy cloth, silk and cotton fabrics, velvets, printed hand-kerchiefs and calicoes, all of an inferior or middling quality; also for toys, looking-glasses, needles, articles of glass-ware, weapons and fire-arms, black pepper, and various trinkets. In exchange, the caravans bring back principally gums, coffee, ivory, myrrh, wax, honey, ostrich feathers, peltries, horns, gold, musk, mules, wheat, and slaves.

—The manufacture of cottonades is the chief industry of the country. The principal trades are those of weavers, metal-workers, blacksmiths, metal-founders, gunsmiths, goldsmiths. The various industries are centered mainly at Gondar. As a rule, and for ordinary purposes, every man in Abyssinia is his own artisan.

—All traffic between Abyssinia and foreign lands converges at Massowah, one of the best harbors on the Red sea. The city and the fort are now governed by a Turkish officer appointed by the Ottoman government at Djedda. France, England and Austria have each a consul at Massowah. In 1859 France acquired Adulis, and in 1860, Obhok.

—In ordinary times two principal caravans, the larger in the month of July or June, arrive at Massowah from Gondar every year. Smaller caravans come in every month. Caravans also come from Taka and Khartoum. A document published by the minister of agriculture and commerce estimates at 14,000,000 francs the general business transacted at the port of Massowah in 1859. Of this sum the imports amounted to 12,000,000 francs in round numbers, and the exports, 2,000,000. If these figures are correct, they show a great increase, as compared with the estimates for the preceding years.

—BIBLIOGRAPHY: Wanderings among the Falashas in Abyssinia, by Stern; London, 1862. Voyage en Abyssinie, by Ferret and Galinier; Paris, 1847. Travels in Abyssinia, by Plowden; London, 1868. Lefebvre, Voyage en Abyssinie; 6 vols. with an atlas, 1845-50. The British Expedition to Abyssinia, by Hozier; London, 1869. Reconnoitering in Abyssinia, by Wilkins; London, 1870. A History of the Abyssinian Expedition, by Markham; London, 1869.

MAURICE BLOCK.

ACADEMIES

ACADEMIES. "To give unity to truths scattered over the earth:" nothing proves more clearly the need of academic bodies than these simple words dropped, as if by chance, from the pen of a celebrated French writer, Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, at the beginning of his Chaumière Indienne. Unity and multiplicity: such is the law of nature, as well in the intellectual and moral as in the material order. Hence the need of bringing thinking men together, so as to unite at a common focus their scattered and unconnected ideas.

—Academic bodies continue the work of the great teaching bodies: in the latter, masters and scholars come together; in the former, masters only. The word academy often means a school, as for instance, the philosophical school of Plato, in the garden of Academus at Athens. This meaning of the word was preserved through the middle ages, as it has been down to our own time, in the universities of Germany, whose graduates continue to bear the title of civis academicus, although academies are devoted to the advancement of science, while universities, taking the branches of knowledge at their present state of advancement, confine themselves to giving an exposition of such branches of knowledge to those who attend them. This distinction made, we shall consider academies in the generally accepted sense of the term, as societies of men distinguished for their knowledge and their talents, who confer together on certain questions of literature, science and art.

—It is the duty of every government to know and to follow the intellectual movement of the nation. Learned societies afford it the means of doing this. Their origin is frequently a modest one. Sometimes patrons of literature lay their foundation. Liberty and independence are of their essence. An academy which would consent to endure any pressure, especially that of authority, would soon be stricken with impotence. Thought, in order to labor fruitfully in the search after truth, should be free from all embarrassing prepossession and preoccupation. The interference of power, when limited to moral protection and material assistance, in no way affects the liberty of academic action. Learned societies when deprived of governmental aid are able, only in exceptional cases, to rise to the height of really national institutions and exercise on men's minds all the influence of which they are capable. It follows that there are two kinds of academies: state academies and free academies, just as there are in high education, free universities (few in number, it is true) and state universities. What the state can and should do, if only in its own interest, is to surround its academies and learned men with the consideration due them. Great monarchs, powerful ministers, such as Peter the Great in Russia and Richelieu in France, understood perfectly well the power which the cultivation of letters, science and art gives the state. The efforts of vulgar levelers will always fail when opposed by classes of men distinguished for their intelligence. Intelligence is a privilege which
Edition: current; Page: [14]
can not be abolished since it is not conventional, but inherent in the very nature of man.

—Independent of the functions peculiar to an academy and dependent on its internal organization, there are functions common to all academies because they belong to them from the very principle of their existence. Academies, therefore, as central organs of the intellectual life of the nation, acquainted with the progress of the human mind at home and abroad, cause the public to share that progress by means of oral discussion, by their periodical transactions, and by all the means which the greatest publicity can suggest. In this regard, academies partake of the nature of legislative bodies in democratic states, with this difference, however, that scientific questions can not be decided by majorities. As a scientific jury, however, an academy decides by a plurality of votes for or against the merits of papers written in answer to questions which it has proposed for discussion.

—It would be difficult to give an idea of the number of academies and learned societies in the civilized world. A learned German, Dr. Ami Boué, member of the imperial academy of sciences of Vienna, in a work which forms a part of The Report of the Third Session of the International Statistical Congress, gives the number at 19,000, of which 18,436 are still in existence. Chronologically, the 19,000 associations (or, more correctly, 18,955) are divided into 2 classes, the first containing 1,021, founded during the 589 years which elapsed between the thirteenth century and 1790, and the second, 17,934, in the short subsequent period. After having thus shown the progress made by learned societies, "it is not possible to go backwards," says the author; "it is a mathematical, material and political impossibility."

—Ethnographically considered, the Anglo-Saxon races have twice as many learned societies as the Latin races, to which the Germanic races are a little inferior in this respect. From the point of view of religion, the Protestants have, in proportion to their population, four times as many learned societies as the Catholics, and a hundred and forty times as many as the Greeks.

—These statistics, as we have just seen, carry us back to the thirteenth century—the epoch from which the revival of letters dates. It was the age of Brunetto Latini, Dante's teacher. The first quarter of the succeeding century in France witnessed the establishment of the academy of floral games, at Toulouse, the work of the troubadours of Languedoc and Provence. From Italy came the literary impetus, afterwards felt by all Christian nations; during the fifteenth century by the Platonic academy established under Lorenzo di Medici, which professed Neoplatonism (Pico dela Mirandola was a member of it); in the sixteenth century by the academy della Crusca; in the seventeenth century by the del Cimento, all in Florence, which is justly considered the cradle of existing learned bodies. We shall now consider the most celebrated societies, classifying them by countries.

—FRANCE. The Institut National, established at Paris, is the realization of a thought expressed in the following terms in the constitution of the 5th Fructidor, year III.: "There shall be for the entire republic a national institute, charged with collecting and preserving the results of scientific and other discoveries and perfecting the arts and sciences." Consisting at first of 3 classes: physical and mathematical sciences, moral and political sciences, literature and the fine arts, the institute was reorganized in 1803 into 4 classes: physical and mathematical sciences, the French language and literature, history and ancient literature, and the fine arts. The salary of members was 1,500 francs. In 1816 the institute was reorganized as the French academy, the academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, the academy of sciences, and the academy of fine arts. In 1832, on the motion of M. Guizot, the academy of moral and political sciences was re-established. The institute held its first session at the Louvre in the Salle des Antiques. In 1806 it was located opposite the Louvre, at the hotel Mazarin, which was afterwards called the Palais de l' Institut. The academy holds sessions every Monday; the French academy, on Thursdays; the academy of inscriptions, on Fridays; the academy of moral and political sciences and fine arts, on Saturdays. By a decree of April 14, 1855, it was provided that the public sessions of the five academies should take place on the 15th of August of each year. At these sessions lectures are given, and the Volney prize for linguistics awarded; but since 1871 this session takes place on October 25th, the anniversary of the founding of the institute. The institute is under the supervision of the minister of public instruction. It appoints a central administrative commission from among its own members, to oversee the expenses of the five academies, as well as a special commission to award the prize in linguistics established by Volney.

—Cardinal Richelieu gave legal authorization to a private society, founded by young men about the year 1629. This was the origin of the French academy. Its letters, patent, signed by Louis XIII., date as far back as the year 1635. Established for the study and advancement of the French language, of grammar, poetry and eloquence, it was charged especially with the composition of the dictionary of the French language, Dictionnaire de l' Académie, the first edition of which appeared in 1694, and the sixth in 1835. The French academy, composed of 40 members, admitted neither corresponding nor associate members. It granted prizes for eloquence and poetry, prizes from the bequest of Montyon for virtuous acts and for books most useful to morals, as well as prizes from the bequests of Gobert, Bordin, Lambert, Count de Maillé Latour-Landry, Edmond Halphen, Thérouanne, and Langlois. The academy has published 6 volumes of memoirs since 1816.

—The academy of inscriptions and belles-lettres, originally called the little academy, its members being recruited
Edition: current; Page: [15]
from among those of the French academy, was founded in 1663 by Colbert, to examine and pass upon the embellishments of Versailles, as well as the designs for the tapestry of the king; the devices for the fêtes, tokens for the treasury, and the inscriptions on monuments and medals. In the month of February, 1712, its establishment was confirmed by letters patent of Louis XIV. It was only under the regency that it joined to its title of belles-letters that of inscriptions. It numbers 40 members, 8 foreign associates, and 50 corresponding members. Besides prizes for the best works on the antiquities of France, and the prize of numismatics, it awards those of the Allier, Hauteroche, Gobert, Bordin, Fould, La Fons-Mélicocq and Brunet foundations. The memoirs of the members have been published since 1701. The current series commencing with 1816, comprises 24 volumes, besides 9 volumes of the memoirs of foreign scholars.

—The academy of sciences is also a creation of Colbert, who established it in 1666, without any official act of royal authority. It was approved and confirmed in 1699 by letters patent of the king. Its constitution has always been considered one of the most liberal in existence. The academy is to-day divided into 11 sections; 5 for the mathematical sciences, including geometry, mechanics, astronomy, geography and navigation, and general physics; and 6 for the physical sciences, including chemistry, mineralogy, botany, agriculture, anatomy and zoölogy, medicine and surgery. It has 66 titular members, 10 free academicians, 8 foreign associates, and 100 corresponding members. It gives prizes on its own account; also prizes for medicine and surgery, experimental physiology, mechanics and statistics, all founded by Montyon; as well as the prizes founded by Lalande, Baron de Morogues, Laplace, Cuvier, Bordin, Alhumbert, Trémont, Bréant, Damoiseau, Poncelet, Jecker, Barbier, Godard, Savigny, Desmazières, Thore, Fourneyron, Dalmot, Chaussier, de la Fons-Mélicocq, Gegner, Serres, Lacaze. The collection of the memoirs of the academy of sciences since 1816, comprises 37 volumes, and 19 from foreign scholars, besides the series of reports of its sessions which numbers 70 volumes.

—In France, as well as in Italy, there have been free associations of painters since the fourteenth century. In 1648 Cardinal Mazarin founded an academy of painting and sculpture, to which Colbert, in 1671, added an academy of architecture. The academy had been regularly established by letters patent of King Louis XIV. in 1655. Its province embraces the arts of design, the competitions for the great prizes for painting, sculpture, architecture, engraving and musical composition, and the presentation to the minister of candidates for professorships in the schools of the fine arts. It has 40 members, divided into 5 sections: painting, sculpture, architecture, engraving and musical composition; 10 foreign associate members, and an indefinite number of corresponding members. The prizes founded by Madame Leprince, by Deschaumes, by Count de Maillé Latour Landry, by Bordin, Lambert, Trémont, Achille Leclère, Troyon, and by Due, are bestowed by this academy.

—The academy of moral and political sciences is comparatively modern. It dates only from the organization of the institute, 3d Brumaire, year IV. But, suppressed 3rd Pluviôse, year X., it was re-established by royal ordinance Oct. 26, 1832. Its aim is the cultivation and encouragement of philosophical science, and the science of government, as is evident from the 5 sections into which it is divided: philosophy; morals; legislation, public law and jurisprudence; political economy, finance and statistics; general and philosophical history; (decrees of April 14, 1855, and May 9, 1866). It has 40 titular members, 6 free academicians, with 6 foreign associate and 45 corresponding members. In addition to the prizes which they decree, are those from the bequests of the following persons: Baron Félix de Beaujour, Baron de Morogues, Bordin, Léon Faucher, Edmond Halphen, Cousin, and Stassart. It has published 12 volumes of memoirs since 1816, and 2 volumes from foreign scholars. Besides this, since 1842, a report of the sessions is published regularly. These reports make in all 60 volumes in 4 series: the first 4 are by MM. Loiseau and Vergé, and the succeeding by the latter alone.

—The Paris academy of medicine was created by Louis XVIII., Dec. 28, 1820, for the purpose of keeping the government informed of everything affecting public health, especially epidemics, epizoötics, the different kinds of medicine, new remedies and secret remedies, mineral waters, natural or artificial. It replaced the academy of surgery in Paris, founded by Louis XV. in 1731. Its sessions are on Tuesdays. The academy is composed of 97 titular members, 8 free associate members, 12 national associate members, 12 foreign associate members, 100 national and 50 corresponding members. It is divided into 11 sections: 1, anatomy and physiology; 2, medical pathology; 3, surgical pathology; 4, therapeutics, and medical natural history; 5, operative medicine; 6, pathological anatomy; 7, midwifery; 8, public hygiene, medical jurisprudence and medical police; 9, veterinary medicine; 10, medical chemistry and physics; 11, pharmacy. Its publications are its annual memoirs, commenced in 1828; a semi-monthly bulletin, from the year 1836 to the year 1847; and a weekly bulletin since the latter year. In the annual of 1848 the titles of all its memoirs published up to that time were given.

—The society of surgery, at Paris, acknowledged to be an establishment of public utility by an imperial decree of Aug. 29, 1859, was founded July 1, 1843, by 17 surgeons of the hospitals of Paris. The surgical society is very well known. Besides the regular publication of its memoirs and bulletins, the Gazette des hópitaux, Moniteur des Sciences and the Union Medicale have special editors charged with attending the sessions and giving an account of them every week
Edition: current; Page: [16]
The sessions take place every Wednesday. The society is composed of 35 regular members, 70 national corresponding members, 70 foreign corresponding and 20 foreign associate members. On the second Wednesday of January an official session is held, at which the Duval prize of books is awarded. An annual contribution by the members, together with the profits from the sale of books and the charge for diplomas, make up the income of the society—On May 19 of the same year (1859) the Paris society of anthropology was founded for the purpose of centralizing and directing research relating to the study of the races of mankind. Its programme does not comprise simply the description of these races; it includes also the investigation of their origin, their relations, their migrations, their civilization present and past, their languages and their monuments. The society is comprised of 115 French members, 26 foreign members, and 21 corresponding members. Its sessions are held on the first and third Thursdays of each month. Its resources are the same as those of the surgical society, and, like the latter, it publishes memoirs and bulletins. Mention should also be made of the central agricultural society of France, the society of acclimation, the central horticultural society, and the society for the encouragement of national industry, as among those which enjoy most consideration. Before leaving France we may refer to its numerous provincial societies. Each department has at least one, and the taste for historical studies predominates among their members. A special publication is devoted to them under the title: Annuaire de l' institut des provinces, des sociétés savantes et des congrès scientifiques, Paris, 1846, and the following years.

—ENGLAND. The royal society of London was established in 1660, for the advancement of experimental science. A royal charter of July 15, 1662, and a second, more complete, of April 22 of the following year, constituted it a corporation; a charter of 1663 is still the fundamental law of the royal society, which had in 1859, 691 members. The society is divided into 8 scientific committees: on mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, botany, zoölogy, and animal physiology. It holds its sessions every Thursday, in the great hall of Burlington House, and has an annual session on St. Andrew's day for the award and distribution of medals. Its publications are the Philosophical Transactions, a yearly volume; and the Proceedings, a monthly bulletin. The most recent history of the royal society of London is that of Mr. Charles Weld.

—The London astronomical society is composed of 431 members, and 49 associate members. The astronomical society holds its sessions on the second Friday of every month, at Somerset House on the Strand. The regular annual meeting takes place on the second Friday in February. The yearly dues from members are 2 guineas, besides an admission fee of 2 guineas. The society publishes memoirs and a monthly bulletin, which mutually supplement each other.

—The geological society of London, which has its headquarters in Somerset House, had 1,245 members in 1870, of whom 39 were foreigners, 40 foreign corresponding members, and 3 honorary members. It was founded Nov. 13, 1807, and received a royal charter in 1826. The dues are 2 guineas a year or 20 guineas for life membership, and 6 guineas admission fee. The receipts of the society amounted to 2,560 pounds sterling in 1870. A quarterly review, containing many maps and pictures, has been published since 1845. The publication of the Transactions and the Proceedings has ceased, since the establishment of the Quarterly Journal, edited by the adjunct secretaries of the society.

—The British association for the advancement of science was founded by Sir David Brewster, at York, Sept. 27, 1831. It meets annually, but not always at the same place. The first meeting, composed of 300 members, was held at York on the 27th of September, 1831; the succeeding ones in other towns. The association is divided into 7 or 8 sections: the sections of the mathematical and physical sciences; chemistry and mineralogy; geology; zoölogy; botany; animal and vegetable physiology; geography and ethonology; statistics and political economy. A central committee, with a fixed place of abode, does the society's business and publishes an annual volume of reports.

—The Irish academy for the study and advancement of science, politics, literature and antiquities, at Dublin, recognized by royal patent of Jan. 28, 1786, but which existed as far back as 1782, was formed by the union of the physico-historical society of Dublin and the archæological association, societies founded respectively in 1740 and in 1772. The academy consists of 245 paying members, 62 honorary members, and 21 corresponding members. It is divided into 3 classes: sciences: history and belles-lettres; and archæology. It receives 300 pounds sterling from the government, and publishes memoirs under the usual title of Transactions, as well as Proceedings.

—In 1731 a society was founded at Edinburgh, which in 1739 became the society of literature and science. After absorbing the society of medicine and surgery, it received the title of philosophical society, and published 3 volumes of essays in succession. It was recognized by the government March 29, 1783. It has 279 members, 136 paying members. The fee is 3 guineas annually, or 50 guineas for life membership, besides 5 pounds for a diploma. The Philosophical Transactions have been published regularly since 1788, and the Proceedings since 1836.

—England has a number of historical societies, among which are the royal society of literature of the United Kingdom, at London, founded in 1823, which, besides books, has published a great work on hieroglyphics, with 60 plates; the historical society of London, founded in 1837 or 1838, and which has 100 members, who pay a yearly fee of
Edition: current; Page: [17]
5 guineas, to which is due the publication of a history of the Anglican church; the historical society of sciences, at London, founded in 1840, for the publication of documents on the history of the sciences and their condition at different periods, the members paying an annual fee of one pound sterling. Another society founded also in London, in 1842, is devoted to the ancient history of England.

—GERMANY. The academy of sciences at Berlin, founded in 1707, by Frederick I., at the suggestion of the illustrious Leibnitz, its first president, is governed by the royal statutes of March 31, 1838, which replaced those of Jan. 24, 1812. On Jan. 1, 1871, it had 46 regular members, 22 of the class of the physical and mathematical sciences, and 24 of the philosophical and historical class. It has 13 foreign members of the former, and 2 of the latter class, besides 11 honorary members, 83 corresponding members of the class of sciences, and 100 of the class of philosophy. All regular members receive an annual salary of 200 thalers. There are weekly sessions, and three solemn public sessions each year: on January 24th, the anniversary of the birth of King Frederick II.; July 3rd, in memory of Leibnitz; and on the anniversary of the birth of the reigning sovereign. The publications of this society consist in memoirs and monthly reports.

—The royal society of sciences at Göttingen, the foundation of which dates from 1751, has always been among the most celebrated in Germany. At present, the number of its regular members is 8 in the class of physical sciences, 6 in the mathematical sciences, and 10 in that of history and philology; it has honorary members, foreign associate members, and corresponding members. The maximum number of associate members is fixed at 25, and of corresponding members at 50, for each class. Besides a weekly critical journal, which appears under its auspices, the society publishes a monthly bulletin of its sessions, and yearly memoirs, of which the last series, dating from 1811, makes 20 volumes, the first 8 volumes being in Latin. The title of the critical journal is: Goettingische gelehrte Anzeigen; that of the bulletin: Nachrichten von der koeniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der G. A. Universität.

—The royal academy of sciences at Munich, organized according to law on the 28th of March, 1759, is divided into 3 classes: philosophy and philology; physical and mathematical sciences; and history. The first class numbers 13 ordinary members and 1 member extraordinary, 62 foreign and 8 corresponding members. There are respectively 17, 8, 85, 81 members of the second class, and 16, 6, 37, 35 for the third class above referred to, besides 15 honorary members of the 3 classes together. The class of mathematical and physical sciences is subdivided into 8 sections: natural history; astronomy; mathematics and mechanics; physics, chemistry; zoölogy, anatomy and physiology; botany; mineralogy and geognosy.

—We may mention further in Germany, the Leopold academy, a society of naturalists, established at present in Jena. Its members, native and foreign, take or receive each as a surname, that of some scientific celebrity.2 It is a great institution whose history has been published by one of its own members, Mr. Neigebaur. It takes its name from the Emperor Leopold I., who took it under his protection in 1677.

—AUSTRIA. The imperial academy of sciences of Vienna was founded in 1652, and reorganized under letters patent of the Emperor Ferdinand I., dated May 14, 1847. It is divided into 2 classes, the class of mathematical and natural sciences, and the class of philosophy and history. Its personnel consists of 60 active members, 30 of each class, 120 corresponding members, 60 of each class, (30 from the empire and 30 from foreign countries), and 24 honorary members, (8 from the empire and 16 from foreign countries).

—The other great academies of Austria are: the imperial and royal academy of fine arts at Vienna, founded in 1704; the imperial and royal academy of medicine and surgery, named after Joseph II., and founded at Vienna in 1786; the imperial geographical society of Vienna, a free association founded January, 1856; the royal society of sciences, at Prague, founded as a free society in 1769, and divided into 2 classes like the academy of Vienna, having 21 regular members, 46 members extraordinary, 7 honorary, 75 foreign and corresponding members; the Hungarian academy of sciences, at Pesth, founded by the Hungarian estates in the diet 1825-1827, for the cultivation and propagation mainly of science in the Hungarian language, and divided into 3 sections: languages and belles-lettres; philosophical, social and historical sciences; and the mathematical and natural sciences.

—ITALY. Twelve principal academies fix the attention of the learned world in the Italian peninsula: the royal academy of Turin, divided into 2 classes, the class of physical and mathematical sciences, and that of the moral, historical and philological sciences; the academy of painting and fine arts, in the same city, founded during the last century; the royal academy della Crusca, at Florence, which has edited the fifth edition of its dictionary of the Italian language; the academy of science and art of the Fisiocritici, founded in 1691, at Sienna, where the purest Italian is spoken; the royal academy of sciences and belles-lettres of Naples, founded in 1780, and reorganized in the month of September, 1860; the academy of fine arts of the same city; the royal academy of science, letters and art, of Milan, founded in 1812 and reorganized in 1860; the academy of sciences, letters and arts, of Milan, founded in 1812 and reorganized in 1860; the academy of sciences, letters and arts, of Padua, founded by a decree of the Venetian senate, March 18, 1779; the institute of science, letters and arts, of Venice, which was established
Edition: current; Page: [18]
in 1802 by the Cisalpine republic: the academy of sciences of the institute of Bologna, which dates back to the year 1690, and in which Pope Benedict XIV. established a class of bursers in 1745; the academy of sciences and belles-lettres of Palermo, certainly the oldest in existence, since its origin goes back to 1231; the academy of sciences of Catana, founded in 1744.

—SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. Besides the literary and scientific, known as the academy of jurisprudence and legislation, the academy of medicine, the academy of archæology, the atheneum, etc., there are in Madrid 5 royal academies subsidized by the government, viz.: the Spanish academy or academy of the national language; the academy of history; the academy of higher arts, painting, sculpture and architecture, called also the academy of San Fernando, founded under Philip V., but which began its labors only in 1752, under Ferdinand VI.; the academy of exact sciences, physical and natural, which dates only from 1847; and the academy of moral and political sciences, more recent still, since it was created by article 160 of the law of Sept. 9, 1857, and by royal decree of the 30th of the same month.

—After the academy of sciences of Thomar, in Estramadura, in 1752, and after the royal Portuguese academy of Mafra, founded by the Marquis of Pombal, the royal academy of sciences at Lisbon was founded Dec. 24, 1779. It is divided into 2 departments: the first of natural, and the second of political and moral sciences. The president of it is always a prince of the reigning dynasty. The royal academy of fine arts at Lisbon, the academy of fine arts and the polytechnic academy, both at Oporto, are institutions in which special branches of knowledge are taught.

—RUSSIA. The imperial academy of sciences of St. Petersburg is a creation of Peter the Great, who after conferring with Leibnitz and other illustrious personages of the time, founded it Jan. 28, 1724. The empress Catharine II. founded the Russian academy in 1783, to encourage the development of literature, and in 1841 the Russian academy was incorporated with the academy of sciences by the emperor Nicholas. As at present organized, the imperial academy is divided into 3 classes or sections: 1, that of the physico-mathematical sciences; 2, the class of literature and the Russian language, with a separate management; 3, the historico-philological class. The researches of the academy are contained in 8 different collections of commentaries, acts, memoirs, and in a scientific bulletin intended for short notices, the publication of which should not be delayed.

—The imperial academy of medicine and surgery, at St. Petersburg, founded Feb. 12, 1799, and reorganized in 1802, is a school of medicine, attended both by a great number of medical students and students of the veterinary art and pharmacy. It publishes three different collections of reports, in Russian, German and French.

—The imperial academy of fine arts at St. Petersburg is an educational institution, with 300 students of painting, sculpture, architecture, engraving, etc. There are also museums of painting, sculpture and architecture, with models of different edifices, ancient and modern, of Christian archæological objects, and a library; likewise an institution and studio of mosaic painting, where the mosaic art is taught and orders executed under the direction of a professor of the academy, and belonging to the academy. In one of the halls meetings of architects and other artists are held.

—The imperial Russian geographical society of St. Petersburg dates only from 1845. It was founded August 6th of that year, and has 4 sections: mathematical geography, physical geography, ethnography, and statistics. Separate sections were established in 1851 at Irkutsk, in Siberia, and in 1850 in the Caucasus. In 1867 2 new sections were founded: the section of the western provinces and that of Orenburg. The publications of the society comprise, in addition to several special collections, 18 volumes of memoirs, a monthly bulletin, monographs, maps and atlases.

—SWEDEN. The Swedish academy at Stockholm was founded by Gustavus III., March 20, 1786. In the discourse with which this sovereign inaugurated the sessions, he announced that his object was to fix the rules and extend the knowledge of the Swedish language, to celebrate and revive national memories, as well as to pronounce the eulogy of great men who had served or saved the country, and thus contribute not only to ennobling the language, but to increasing the glory of the most illustrious sons of Sweden. The memoirs of the academy are published annually, and contain biographies of distinguished Swedes, the compositions which have taken the prize for eloquence and poetry as well as literary, historical, philosophical and philological dissertations by members of the academy. These memoirs, published from 1786 to 1871, contain 51 volumes 8vo. In 1857 the prize for poetry was awarded to Prince Oscar, for his songs in honor of the Swedish fleet. In 1870 the academy published the first number of its great dictionary of the Swedish language.

—DENMARK. In 1742 was founded the Societas Hafniensis bonis artibus promovendis. Christian VI. recognized it the following year, and four years later it became the present royal society of science of Copenhagen. Its publications, illustrated by a great number of plates, are numerous and important, especially in the domain of the mathematical sciences, physics and natural history. At present the fifth series of the memoirs of the two classes of sciences and letters has been reached. For six years past the memoirs as well as the bulletins are accompanied by French summaries. Its first centennial history, from 1742 to 1842, has been published by Molbeck.

—BELGIUM. The imperial and royal academy of sciences and belles-letters at Brussels, created by letters patent of the empress Maria Theresa, (Dec. 16, 1772), ceased to exist under the French régime. Re-established May 7, 1816, it was reorganized by a royal decision of Dec. 1, 1845, as the royal academy of sciences,
Edition: current; Page: [19]
literature and fine arts of Belgium. Each of these 3 branches constitutes a class composed of 30 members, 10 corresponding members, and 50 associates, besides 7 academicans, forming a royal commission on history, to publish inedited Belgian chronicles. In the class of literature two commissions have been appointed, one charged with the publication of the ancient monuments of Flemish literature, the other with collecting the works of the great writers of the country. The members of the 3 classes have undertaken the editing of a national biography. It is very difficult to get a complete collection of the publications of the academy since its foundation, monographs, memoirs, notices, reports of meetings, and annuals. In the first volume of the Annuaire de la bibliothèque royale de Belgique, by Baron de Reiffenberg, the extent of this collection may be seen, with additions in the volumes of the following years.

—A royal Belgian academy of medicine exists also at Brussels. Created by a royal decision of Sept. 19, 1841, it is composed of regular members, associate members, corresponding members, and honorary members. Its publications consist of memoirs and monthly bulletins.

—HOLLAND. The royal academy of sciences at Amsterdam, instituted by royal ordinance of Oct. 26, 1851, has taken the place of the royal institute of Holland, established in May, 1808, by the king of Holland, Louis Napoleon. The academy, divided into 2 sections, has published a great number of works, the titles of which may be found in a pamphlet: Revue des sociétés savantes de la Néerlande, published in 1857, by W. Vrolik.

—ASIA. The society of arts and sciences at Batavia is the oldest of all the learned bodies of Asia. Founded April 24, 1778, it felt the influence of the East India company, with its alternations of prosperity and decline. There are two other learned societies in Batavia: the royal academy of natural sciences, founded in 1850, and the industrial and agricultural society of the Dutch East Indies.

ACADEMIES

ACADEMIES (IN AMERICA). The oldest among the American academies devoted to the progress of science, is the American philosophical society at Philadelphia, founded by Benjamin Franklin and his associates in 1743. It has published, from 1771 to 1881, two series of transactions in quarto, numbering 21 volumes, (besides 20 volumes of proceedings), and filled with papers of value on a great variety of subjects. The American academy of arts and sciences, established at Boston, 1780, has issued many costly volumes, illustrating natural history and other sciences. The academy of natural sciences of, Philadelphia, started in 1814, has devoted itself to original investigations and publications, as to the plants, animals and minerals of the United States, and has collected a very fine and extensive museum of objects of natural history. The lyceum of natural history in New York city, founded 1818, has published many volumes of annals devoted to science. The Boston society of natural history, 1834, has done much to promote investigation in its special field. The Connecticut academy of arts and sciences, founded in 1799, at New Haven, is still publishing valuable memoirs. The Essex institute, of Salem, Mass., formed in 1848 from the union of a county natural history society and a historical society, has nearly 500 members, and has printed a long series of collections illustrating history, biography, and almost every department of science. The Albany (N. Y.) institute, organized in 1824, has collected a library and a natural history collection, and published 8 volumes of transactions. The Franklin institute of Philadelphia, which dates from 1824, is for the promotion of the mechanic arts, and has published 110 volumes of its journal. The American institute, New York city, dating from 1829, devoted chiefly to agriculture and the mechanic arts. Thirty-two volumes of its transactions have been published by the state.

—Of institutions or academies devoted to the fine arts, may be named the national academy of design, organized at New York in 1828, the Pennsylvania academy of fine arts, Philadelphia, 1807, and the metropolitan museum of art, established in New York city in 1870; these have annual or permanent exhibitions of painting and sculpture, and the last named has gathered a most valuable archæological collection.

—Of the historical societies of the United States, the oldest is the Massachusetts historical society, organized at Boston in 1791, "to collect, preserve and communicate materials for a complete history of the country." It has published more than 70 volumes. Since the birth of this Nestor of the historical societies, more than 170 others have been formed, representing states or localities, of which we can only name the more vigorous or extensive: New York historical society (1804); American antiquarian society, Worcester, Mass., (1812); Rhode Island, Providence, (1822); Maine, (1822); New Hampshire, (1823); Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, (1824); Connecticut, Hartford, (1825); Ohio historical and philosophical society, Cincinnati, (1831); Virginia, Richmond, (1831); Vermont, Montpelier, (1838); Georgia, Savannah, (1839); Maryland, Baltimore, (1844); New Jersey, Newark, (1845); New England historic-genealogical society, Boston, (1845); Minnesota, St. Paul, (1849); Wisconsin, Madison, (1849); Iowa, Iowa City, (1857); Long Island, Brooklyn, N. Y., (1863); and Southern historical society, Richmond, (1869). Most of these have published volumes of original contributions to history or early manuscripts.

—Of academies devoted to special sciences, there are the American geographical society, organized at New York in 1851; American philological
Edition: current; Page: [20]
society New York; American institute of architects, New York; American oriental society, founded at New Haven, in 1842; American numismatic and archæological society, 1857; American society of civil engineers and architects, New York; the American ethnological society, New York, 1842; Washington philosophical society, Washington, D. C., 1871; Cooper union for the advancement of science and art, New York, 1854, with a free school of art and science, lectures, library and periodical reading room; Lowell institute, Boston, 1839; Peabody institute, Baltimore, 1857 [the last two devoted, the one to public lectures, the other to a library, popular lectures, a conservatory of music, and an academy of art]; American association for advancement of social science, Boston, 1869, which has published 10 volumes; American medical association, Philadelphia, 1847; American public health association, Washington, 1872; American pharmaceutical society, Philadelphia, 1852.

—There are in the United States, 3 more prominently national organizations or academies, viz.: The national academy of sciences, Washington, incorporated by congress in 1863, with a membership originally limited to 50; this academy is required to investigate and report upon any subjects referred to it by the government, and its proceedings and papers (hitherto small in extent) are printed by congress. The American association for advancement of science, organized in 1848, 30 volumes of whose annual proceedings have been issued. The Smithsonian institution, Washington, created by act of congress in 1846, in pursuance of a legacy left by an Englishman to found an institution for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. Its large income, of about $35,000 annually, is expended in procuring and publishing original researches in science, and to an efficient and widely useful international exchange. It has published more than 75 volumes of contributions to knowledge, miscellaneous collections and annual reports.

—In America, outside of the United States, may be named the natural history society of Montreal; the literary and historical society of Quebec; the real sociedad económica de la Habana (Cuba); the sociedad Mexicana de geografia y estadistica (México); the instituto historico geographico e ethnographico do Brazil (Rio Janeiro), an active scientific academy, the most important in South America, founded in 1838, and enjoying an annual grant of $3,500 from the government; and the universidad de Chile (Santiago), an institution for liberal education, which has published over 50 volumes of valuable anales and scientific memoirs.

A. R. SPOFFORD.

ACCLAMATION

ACCLAMATION. This term, which signifies a unanimous call, is to be understood in the language of politics to mean that spontaneous expression of general consent which excludes all discussion, and bears down the isolated opposition of individuals. When an assembly votes by acclamation, whether there have been debates on the question at issue or not, it means that an immense majority have agreed on some matter, and that it would be useless to have recourse to the taking of a vote to demonstrate such agreement.

—In Portugal the word has a special signification which is worth calling to mind. It refers to the accession of the house of Braganza to the throne after the overthrow of the Spanish dominion (Dec. 1, 1640). The vote calling the duke of Braganza to power was so unanimous that the word acclamation was perfectly fitted to mark the date when the dynasty of Braganza began. The Portuguese have made it an historic epoch from which they date, and say such an event took place before, during or after the acclamation.

M. B.

ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH

ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH. It is to the power of accumulation or saving (two terms which in political economy are almost equivalent) that we owe all our capital, all our wealth.

—All the utilities created by man are susceptible of accumulation, whether these utilities are identified with the men themselves, as those which consist in acquired knowledge, in the perfection given our physical, intellectual or moral faculties, or those added to external objects.

—Of the accumulation of utilities of this last class, the most important are those realized in the cultivation of the soil. They consist in the clearing and reclaiming of land; in the increase of its natural fertility by manuring, irrigation or other means; in the substitution of plants useful to man for those with which the ground was primitively covered and not useful to man; in the multiplication and domestication of animals or beasts of burden employed as forces or intended for food; and finally, in the buildings, structures, machines or instruments used in exploitation of any kind. Accumulation of this kind forms the great mass of the material wealth of all nations whose civilization is advanced.

—Next in order of importance come accumulations of wealth under the form of dwelling houses, of factories, shops, machines and tools, roads, railroads, canals, bridges, ships, harbors, etc.; in a word, all the creations of industry destined to facilitate manufacturing or commercial operations, or to satisfy the wants of shelter, of intercourse, communication, etc.

—After these, the most important accumulations in the material order appear under the form of a supply of products destined either for the immediate satisfaction of our wants—such as furniture, utensils, fuel, food, linen, clothing, etc., with which every household is more or less amply provided, or those which have to undergo various changes or modifications, to fit them for consumption.

—Among the utilities which are identified with man, those whose accumulation or extension is most important, consist in the perfection given to the industrial faculties, under which term we comprise: 1st, all positive knowledge capable of rendering man's labors more fruitful; 2nd, the art of applying this knowledge, and the spirit of invention; 3rd,
Edition: current; Page: [21]
skill in performing all the details in the different kinds of work; 4th, the practice of the habits, individual or collective, most favorable to the development and power of the industrial faculties, and the harmony of economic relations.

—It is plain that the accumulation of utilities, of capital, of wealth, may and really does take place under a multitude of forms. Among these forms we have not included that of money or coin. In reality, accumulations in no way need an increase in the quantity of that particular product; and it is undoubted that a people may double their wealth or increase it tenfold without a single cent being added to their monetary medium. Accumulation of wealth does not take this form except in countries which produce the precious metals.

—Nevertheless it is the almost universal opinion that the greater part of the accumulations of wealth or savings is made under the form of money, and as this false idea is the source of a multitude of economic errors, it seems to us useful to show clearly that although much of the accumulation of wealth appears for a time in the form of money, it consists in reality of something very different. This, a few examples will show. A ditch-digger, by working continuously for six months, has, let us suppose, drained a marsh; the value of his labor is estimated at $400. Of this sum the workman has spent, let us say, $300 for his own personal wants, and there remain to him $100 which he puts into a savings bank. Here is an accumulation equal in value to $100; and all the circumstances remaining the same, this value should be found as an addition to the wealth of the country in one form or another. Is it in the form of money? Evidently not; for the $100, before going into the savings bank, were in possession of the proprietor who received them, let us suppose, from his tenant, who received them from the butcher, who, in turn, received them from the consumer of meat, etc. In short, this money existed in the country before as well as after the operation. The wealth here accumulated, then, does not exist in the form of money, and it can only be found in the improvement given the land by the labor of the ditch-digger, an improvement equal in value to $400, and exceeding by $100 the value of the articles consumed by the workman.

—A builder constructs a house; he expends in its construction, in wages, materials, purchase of land, etc., a sum of $110,000. When he sells the house for $120,000 the excess of $10,000 is his profit, or the price of his services. Of this last sum, $5,000 have been spent in unproductive consumption, and $5,000 are added to the capital which he employs in his business. Does the accumulation here consist in money? By no means; since the money existed before in the hands of the purchaser. It is found in the value of the house which exceeds by $5,000 all that was spent.

—The purchaser of the house receives from his tenants a yearly sum of $6,000. He uses two-thirds of this sum for the personal wants of his family, and he puts the $2,000 of surplus in the bank. Here we have a new accumulation of $2,000, which, although it does not come from new labor, must exist as additional wealth in the country under some form, and, no more than in the preceding cases, under the form of money, since the same money already existed, and has now merely changed hands. In what, then, can the new value acquired to the nation consist? In order to discover this, it is necessary to remark that the service rendered to the tenants by the house is really equal to the value of $6,000, since they have freely consented to pay that sum for its use. They might have applied that service to an industrial purpose and received back its price in that of the products created. But we will suppose that they have consumed it unproductively for their personal wants. Now even in this case the savings of the proprietor add none the less a value of $2,000 to the wealth of the country; and this value must necessarily be found in a form different from that of money. This will be easily understood by noting that without this saving, it would have been necessary to add to the unproductive consumption of the premises other productive consumption still by the proprietor, amounting to the value of $2,000. The saving, therefore, must be found in this case in the form of the different objects which the proprietor has abstained from consuming, the preservation of which has diminished the sum total of consumption in the country and consequently increased its actual wealth to that extent, production remaining the same.

—We might take up in this manner, one after another, all the individual savings accumulated in a year, and it would be seen that all have increased the general wealth in proportion to their importance, either by adding to the utilities which the country already possessed or by preserving a greater part of these, by limiting consumption. It will be seen, at the same time, that these accumulations were made under a multitude of different forms other than money, though most of them appear for a moment under this last form. Thus, that which is accumulated in reality is not money; it is objects fitted to satisfy our needs—utilities of various forms.

—It is to be remarked, that these utilities scarcely ever remain in the hands of those to whom they are due; for even when they are exchanged for money, this money is usually given to others by those who have accumulated its values. Now, to place at the disposition of society a utility under one form or another is to render it a service, to furnish it with the means of labor or satisfaction, of which without this it would have been deprived. He who saves renders to society, therefore, a service proportionate to the value of his savings. It is true that he thus acquires the right of demanding equivalent services in return; but so long as he does not actually demand them, so long as he abstains from consuming their value for his personal wants, this value serves others than himself.

—Thus, for example, the owner of land or capital who obtains from these kinds of productive property an annual revenue of $10,000, and who saves half of it every year,
Edition: current; Page: [22]
renders to society a new yearly service worth $5,000; and although he reserves to himself the power of demanding back at a later time the sum total of these services, increased by the total of the interest, it is none the less evident that while he abstains from demanding it and consuming it, society has the benefit of it in his place. A family which during several generations, during two centuries, for example, should have saved uninterruptedly half of its annual income, would have really admitted society during all this time to an equal partition with itself of the means of production and satisfaction which this income brought; in other terms, it would have added to the sum total of the enjoyments of society, an amount twice as great as the family itself could have obtained from it. The means of creating new wealth or satisfaction of which the family would have deprived itself, would have been acquired by others. The only exclusive benefit which its savings brought the family consisted in the feeling of security resulting from the power which it preserved of demanding from society, in case of need, services equal to those which it had ceded to it.

—These results of saving are incontestible. It follows, therefore, that it does not profit exclusively those who save, and that it is a very positive public benefit. The rich man who spends the whole of his revenue every year, in personal and unproductive consumption, does not exceed his rights; but in this way he only renders to others services exactly equal to those he receives from them; he is, therefore, of less use to others, and consequently less worthy of approbation and esteem in this regard, than the rich man who saves.

—Nevertheless, common opinion is more disposed to approve him who spends all his income for his personal wants, than him who saves a part of it. Strange fact, that the person who preserves for his family and society the greater number of utilities of every kind, and does it by restricting his personal enjoyments, is just the man whom the vulgar mind is inclined to reproach with egoism, while it attributes laudable and generous sentiments to him who denies himself nothing.

—To explain this unjust judgment it is affirmed that he whose personal wants are few does not quicken the circulation of wealth, that he deprives industry and commerce of its outlets and of the encouragement which the consumption of wealth might give them. In this way men come to believe and to profess that every one renders more service to society the more value he consumes unproductively. Thus, men justify the expenses of luxury, pride, profusion, etc. This error was so generally disseminated in France, that in the greater part of the pamphlets, etc., written in 1848 and 1849, with the intention of combating the aberrations of socialism, it was thought necessary to praise the expenses of luxury, and endeavor to prove that it is, above all, on account of this kind of outlay, that the poor classes are interested in respecting wealth; so that, to combat lamentable economic errors, others as great were propagated. This we shall try to prove in a few words.

—Wealth is made up of all objects having value in exchange, no matter what their nature or their form. When a portion of wealth is consumed, that portion exists no longer; after which, if the want which it has satisfied appear again and we have still the means of providing for it, the object consumed must be reproduced, and the necessity of this reproduction gives new food to labor.

—But we may consume a portion of wealth in two ways: in the first place, we can absorb its entire value, in such manner that absolutely nothing may remain of it. This is a case of unproductive consumption, which takes place, for example, in the case of a sumptuous repast, of fireworks, etc. We consume in this way the services of those who have furnished and prepared the food, those of the pyrotechnist, the powder manufacturer, the decorators, the costumers, the musicians, the actors, etc. We have thus furnished, but for once only, labor and pay to all these persons. In the second place, we may consume wealth in such a manner that after the operation a value may remain equal to or even greater than that consumed. This is a case of reproductive (or productive) consumption. Suppose, for example, that the value consumed at the banquet or the fête, instead of being used in this way, had been employed in improving a barren hillside or in making a vineyard of it: by this application of the value consumed, we should have given work and wages to ditchers, to vinedressers, to teamsters, to manufacturers of compost, to producers of plants and of props; and we should thus have furnished remunerated employment to a number of laborers at least as great as the number hired at the banquet; and, while nothing remained after the banquet, from this there would remain a vineyard, the annual product of which, the income from it, would furnish every year, and during an indefinite period, an entirely new article of food, in consideration of a certain amount of labor. This example suffices to show how much it is to the interest of workmen in general, that the rich, instead of spending all their income in unproductive consumption, in outlays for luxury, should devote the greatest part possible of it to reproductive consumption. Even if they do not watch directly over these operations, and if they confine themselves to placing the sum of their savings at interest, they still render a greater service to the working classes than spending their wealth unproductively. Deposited with a banker or a loan agent, their savings go to the farmer, the artisan, the contractor, who utilize them in reproductive consumption.

—Do not men complain every day that we have not enough of capital; that it is lacking in manufactures, in commerce, in great works of public utility, and above all in agriculture; and that, by reason of its insufficiency, the rate of interest is too high? But if such is the case, what should we desire? Should we not desire that savings and investments should be multiplied as much as possible, that
Edition: current; Page: [23]
capital should increase and its abundance make the use of it less costly, that is to say, lower the rate of interest?

—Now, rich persons are the only ones who can make savings with ease. It should, therefore, be recommended to them, not by the law, for all liberty should be left them in this regard, but by morals, by the esteem attached to such conduct by an enlightened public opinion, by their own self-interest properly understood, which is here completely in accord with that of the laboring classes. Those who give other counsels to the rich, and desire to persuade them that they render more service and have more merit in proportion as they spend more for their wants, their tastes, their fancies, their vanities, their personal satisfaction, obey, in so doing, a prejudice which is much to be regretted. (See WEALTH, SAVING.)

AMBROISE CLÉMENT.

ACT

ACT, the completion or attestation of any transaction in public, and, in certain cases, in private life. By the word act are specially designated certain decisions the result of conferences, congresses, and of various political bodies, such as diets, chambers and parliaments. Thus, the decisions of the diets of the German empire have appeared, since 1729, under the title of Acta Publica. The word act is often used as a synonym of document and even of contract.

—Thus word has another and special meaning. It applies to the laws emanating from the British parliament and clothed with the royal sanction. It is important to note this last formality; for, in parliament, every proposed law preserves the title of bill, and does not acquire the name of act, until it has received the sanction of the crown. The most ancient act still in force is the celebrated Magna Charta.

—Some acts receive their title from the place where the parliament which passed them met. Others still, from their initial designations. Since the reign of Edward II., the most common usage is to give the year of the reign of the king or queen under whom the act or statute was passed, and also the number of the chapter.

—In the United States the term act is applied to any statute or law made by a legislative body, whether the national congress or the legislature of a state. General or public acts in the United States are those which bind the whole community; special acts affect only certain persons or interests.

X.

ADAMS

ADAMS, Charles Francis, son of John Quincy Adams, was born at Boston, Aug. 18, 1807, was admitted to the bar in 1828, was the candidate of the free-soil party for vice-president in 1848, representative in congress (republican) 1859-61, and minister to Great Britain 1861-68. (See ALABAMA CLAIMS.)

A. J.

ADAMS

ADAMS, John, president of the United States 1797-1801, was born Oct. 19, 1735, in Braintree (now Quincy), Massachusetts, where he died July 4, 1826. He was graduated at Harvard in 1755, was admitted to the bar in 1758, and in 1770 entered public life as a representative in the legislature. He was a delegate to the continental congresses of 1774-77, (see DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.) He entered the diplomatic service in 1777 as minister to France and (in 1785) to England. In 1788 he returned so free from domestic political entanglements that, next to Washington, he was the most available presidential candidate. He became vice-president in 1789 (see ELECTORAL VOTES,) and retained that office until 1797, his casting vote as president of the senate being very useful in support of Hamilton's federalist measures. (See FEDERAL PARTY.) In 1797 he was generally accepted (see CAUCUS, CONGRESSIONAL) as the federalist candidate for the presidency, and was elected over Jefferson. His fatal mistake lay in his retaining Washington's cabinet. His own mind was bent on Washington's policy of neutrality between England and France, and his hearty dislike of Great Britain was a sufficient make-weight against commercial inclinations to enable him to keep the balance fairly even. But his cabinet was as strongly inclined to the Hamiltonian policy, which was not averse to the idea of war with France, and Adams was by no means as successful as Washington in controlling his political household.

—At first the new administration was extremely popular. The X. Y. Z. mission created an intense anti-Gallican feeling in the United States, and while Adams was willing to direct the storm, he was as popular with the Hamiltonian federalists as he had always been with those of New England. But he soon became satisfied that his cabinet was "Hamilton's rather than his," and that the main Hamiltonian object was to force a war upon France. In February, 1799, he therefore nominated ministers to France, and in November imperatively ordered their departure, in both cases without the previous knowledge of his cabinet. His action, dictated by pure patriotism and by a clear perception of the country's best interests, ruined the political prospects of himself and his party. The republicans, (see DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY,) relieved from the necessity of choosing between France and the United States, gathered fresh strength and renewed the struggle for the presidency; and the two factions of the federalists were more successful in proving one another unworthy of public confidence than in repelling the attacks of the common enemy. Upon Adams was thrown the entire responsibility for the alien and sedition laws, the increase of the army for political purposes, and every other "high-flying" federalist measure which had originated in congress. He was beaten by Jefferson, though really only by the vote of South Carolina, and there by a very slender majority (see ELECTORS,) and, embittered by the virulence of the campaign, retired from Washington on the morning of March 4, 1801, without taking part in Jefferson's inauguration. The breach between them was not healed until some thirteen years after.

—
Edition: current; Page: [24]
The federal party never forgave Adams for his share in their overthrow. Their animosity was kept warm by the open desertion of his son (see ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY) to their opponents, and for many years the private life of the ex-president was made busy by recurring newspaper controversies. He and Jefferson died on the same day, the fiftieth anniversary of their joint work, the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

—See 1-3, 7-9 C. F. Adams' Life and Letters of John Adams; Correspondence of John Adams and Wm. Cunningham, 1803-12; 2 Gibbs' Memoirs of the Administrations of Washington and Adams; Trescott's Diplomatic History of the Administration of John Adams; Parton's Life of Burr, 225; Wood's History of the Administration of John Adams, and Correct Statement of the Sources of the history (both entirely untrustworthy, but interesting); and authorities under articles referred to.

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

ADAMS

ADAMS, John Quincy, president of the United States 1825-29, eldest son of John Adams, was born in Braintree (now Quincy), Massachusetts, July 11, 1767, and died in Washington, Feb. 23, 1848. He was graduated at Harvard in 1788, was admitted to the bar in 1791, and in 1794, by Washington's appointment, became minister to the Hague. In 1803 he was chosen, as a federalist, United States senator from Massachusetts. In 1803 his support of the embargo was censured by his state legislature, and he at once resigned and went over to the opposite party, by which he was made minister to Russia and (in 1815) to Great Britain. In 1817 he became secretary of state under Monroe. In 1825 he was chosen president (see DISPUTED ELECTIONS, II.) His support came mainly from the same commercial and business interests which had formed the federal party, but which now, while accepting, without any thought of dissimulation, the republican name, retained all the federalist tendencies. He received but a few (6) scattering electoral votes from the south and west, and these two sections united in a determined opposition to him, which lasted through his administration, and in the next election (1828) was successful in gaining over the middle states and overthrowing Adams, as his father had been overthrown. (See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, II., III.; FEDERAL PARTY, II. Adams has been blamed in part for his own defeat, on the score of his action in raking up, in 1828, the embers of a former charge of secessionist designs against the federalist leaders of New England (see SECESSION, I.; EMBARGO); but as he received the solid New England vote in 1828, the causes of his defeat are evidently to be sought elsewhere.

—Adams retired, but not to permanent private life. His anti-federalist action above mentioned cut him off from all hopes of advancement at the hands of the national republican party in Massachusetts, but the anti-masons (see ANTI-MASONRY, I.) of his district sent him to congress in 1881, and he was regularly re-elected until his death, seventeen years after. In congress he was his own party, and became one of the most prominent members of the house. He opposed or supported the democratic administrations with absolute independence, and when the abolitionist petitions were cut off by the passage of "gagrules" (see PETITION,) he fought the obnoxious rules for years. In February, 1836, on the second of Pinckney's resolutions (see SLAVERY,) that congress had no constitutional right to interfere with slavery in the states, which was carried by a vote of 201 to 7, Adams voted in the minority, and defended his vote by a full, though hypothetical, statement of the war powers of the federal government, under which slavery was eventually abolished. In February, 1837, for asking permission to offer a petition from a number of slaves, he was threatened with the censure of the house, but rode out the storm successfully. In 1839-40, he was counsel for the slaves in the Amistad case. In the course of this series of anti-slavery labors, he gradually drifted into co-operation with the abolitionists (see ABOLITION,) though in his mind his abolitionist warfare seems to have been only an incidental feature in his nationalizing struggle against the overbearing particularism, developed by slavery, of southern leaders. In this sense his work was unfortunate in being 20 years before its time, and he may be considered as a republican of 1856, developed 20 years too early, and almost equally distasteful to both whigs and democrats. He died almost in harness, having fallen from his seat in the house through a paralytic stroke, from whose effects he died two days afterwards.

—See W. H. Seward's Life of John Quincy Adams; C. F. Adams' Memoirs of John Quincy Adams; Quincy's Memoir of John Quincy Adams; and authorities under articles referred to.

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

ADAMS

ADAMS, Samuel, one of the founders of American independence. He was born in Boston, on the 27th of Sept., 1722. He studied theology, but not finding the pulpit congenial, engaged in business in a small way. England's commercial policy towards the colonies led him into the opposition. He vigorously opposed the stamp duties, and was one of the first to advocate separation of the colonies from the mother country. He became a member of the Massachusetts colonial legislature in 1765, and was the first to suggest the establishment of the corresponding societies, with their rendezvous in Boston, which did much to promote the cause of the revolution. As early as 1770, in a speech on the rights of the colonies, he declared that the colonies were free, and would be free; just as in 1740, on the occasion of his taking his degree of A. M., he defended the thesis that "when the commonwealth can not otherwise be preserved, it is lawful to resist the supreme magistrate." A delegate to congress from 1774 to 1782 for Massachusetts, he did all in his power to give effect to the declaration of independence. He was always on the
Edition: current; Page: [25]
best of terms with Franklin, Jefferson and others of the revolutionary chieftains, but not with Washington, whose endeavors to strengthen the federal government he erroneously considered dangerous to the liberties of the people. He was an influential member of the Massachusetts convention of 1788, which favored the adoption of the federal constitution, with some modifications, and he contributed more than any other one man to its final adoption by the eastern states. He was elected lieutenant governor of Massachusetts in 1789, and governor in 1794. He resigned the latter office in 1797, partly on account of old age. He died in Boston, Oct. 2, 1802, at the age of 81.

—Samuel Adams was a man of great independence of character, fiery and resolute. He was a democrat by nature and an agitator of the first class. He was a particularist in American politics, and opposed to the federal party. Samuel Adams' judgment may not have been always correct, but he will always retain a place in the hearts of his countrymen as an example of unselfishness, inflexibility and political virtue, as in his lifetime he was styled the American Cato.

X

ADJOURNMENT

ADJOURNMENT. (See PARLIAMENTARY LAW.)

ADMINISTRATION

ADMINISTRATION. (See CIVIL ADMINISTRATION.)

ADMINISTRATIONS

ADMINISTRATIONS (IN U. S. HISTORY.) Under the confederation, the only substitute for an executive power was a series of boards of war, treasury, etc., working under the supervision of committees of congress. Under the constitution these were succeeded by a system of executive departments, organized by acts of congress but filled by appointment of the president. The principal officers of these departments form a body of advisers to the president, for which the name cabinet has been borrowed from English political language; but the word has no original significance in this country, and the president is not even required by the constitution, but merely permitted, to demand the written opinions of heads of departments.

—The present departments were organized by acts of the following dates: War, (then including the Navy), Aug. 7, 1789; Treasury, Sept. 2, 1789; State, (originally Foreign Affairs), Sept. 15, 1789; Justice, (as a part of the Judiciary), Sept. 24, 1789; Postoffice, (temporary) Sept. 22, 1789, (permanent) May 8, 1794; Navy, April 30, 1798; Interior, March 3, 1849. The postmaster general was not considered a cabinet officer until invited by Jackson to cabinet meetings in 1829. Until that time this officer was considered a subordinate of the treasury department. A list of postmasters general, 1789-1829, is given at the end of this article.

—See Poore's Political Register; Lanman's Dictionary of Congress; United States Treasury Register (July, 1880); War Department Register (April, 1881). The organization of the Boards of Foreign Affairs, War, Navy, Treasury, and Postoffice, are in 1 Statutes at Large (Bioren and Duane's edition), 585, 591, 620, 631 and 649 respectively. The acts of Aug. 7, Sept. 2, Sept. 15, Sept. 22, and Sept. 24, 1789, May 8, 1794, and April 30, 1798, (above referred to), are in 1 Stat. at Large, 49, 63, 68, 70, 93, 354 and 553 respectively. The act of March 3, 1849 (Interior Dept.), is in 9 Stat. at Large, 395.

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

AFRICA

AFRICA, one of the five divisions of the globe. Africa would be a continent were it not for the isthmus of Suez which connects it with Asia. At all other points it is bathed by the sea: on the north by the Mediterranean; on the northeast by the Red sea; on the east by the Indian ocean; and on the west by the Atlantic. Its entire area is estimated at 11,556,600 square miles. Its population, of which not even an approximate census has ever been taken, is estimated to be from 60,000,000 to 200,000,000, mostly of the black race. The truth here, as in most cases, is likely to be found between the two extremes.

—Politically, Africa is divided into independent states and peoples, dependent states, and European colonies. I. The independent states and peoples are: In the north, 1, the empire of Morocco, with
Edition: current; Page: [28]
about 216,000 square miles and a population variously estimated at from 2,500,000 to 8,000,000; 2, Tunis, claimed by Turkey as a vassal province, but whose bey exercises sovereign power (in 1871 the bey recognized anew the suzerainty of the porte), with a population of 2,100,000, and an area of about 42,000 English square miles.

—On the west is the republic of Liberia, founded by free black immigrants from America. It has an area of 14,465 square miles; and a population of about 720,000.

—In the east, the island of Madagascar.

—In the south, in the interior, 1, the republic of Orange, established by the Boers, independent Dutch colonists, and 2, the republic of the Transvaal.

—In the northeast, Abyssinia, situated on the lofty plateau between the upper Nile and the Red sea.

—In the interior of Africa, and on certain parts of the coast, native tribes form a multitude of little nations, independent of all foreign power. Some of these are isolated; others are grouped into confederations, or formed into states subject to chiefs, whose dominions assume the titles and extent of kingdoms and empires, the limits of which vary according to the fortunes of war, and are more easily recognized by the people within them than by the territory they enclose. Without pretending to make a complete enumeration of these kingdoms, we may mention the following: in the great desert, the Touraegs and the Tibbous; in Senegambia, the Moorish and Berber tribes, and the Yolof, Bambaras and Mandingoes states (the Cayor Fouta-Djialon, Djiolof, Bambouk, Kharta, Kasso); in central Soudan or Takrour, Segou, Macina, the empire of the Fellatahs formed of a dozen vassal kingdoms, and besides Bornu, Baghirmi, Adamana, Waday, Darfour, etc.; in upper Guinea, the kingdoms of Ashantee and Dahomey. As to the inhabitants of central Africa, unknown to Europeans, those of southern Africa (Hottentots and Kaffres), and those of eastern Africa (Gallas and Somahs), they do not appear to have emerged from the condition of savage and patriarchal tribes, so as to form the body of a nation.

—II. The dependent states are: Egypt proper, an hereditary vice-royalty under the sovereignty of the porte, with an entire area of 175,130 English square miles, and a population of about 5,517,627; Tunis (see above); Tripoli, governed despotically by a pasha named by the sultan; Zanzibar, dependent on the iman of Mascate. To these may be added the coast between Abyssinia and the sea, on which Massouah is situated, administered financially by the porte, and Madagascar, over which France claims sovereign rights of long standing.

—III. The European nations which possess trading posts and colonies on the coast and in the seas of Africa are France, England, Portugal, Spain and Holland. About twenty years ago, Denmark sold her establishments on the Gold coast to England.

—Africa, owing to its Mediterranean coast, has always played a considerable part in the world's history. To mention Egypt and Carthage is to recall the glory and wisdom of antiquity, and the immortal struggles against Rome. In the middle ages the Mussulman sovereigns of Magbreb extended their dominions over Spain, and the regency of Algiers in the hands of the Barbarossas and their successors defied the threats of the Christian world during three centuries. In our own day the cutting of the isthmus of Suez promises a brilliant future to Egypt, situated as it is between Asia and Africa, the Mediterranean and a gulf of the Indian ocean. At all other points Africa has only commercial connections with the rest of the world.

—The economical and commercial position of Africa is a result of its geographical situation.

—Traversed by the equator and both tropics it is within the torrid zone, most of whose vegetable and mineral products are found within its borders, but extending 35° to the north and south. It extends 12° into the northern temperate and 12° into the southern temperate zone, whose southern character is not unlike that of the Mediterranean coast. Two topographical peculiarities greatly modify the effects of its geographical situation. The first is the great deserts which, under the name of the Great Sahara in the north, and the Kalahari in the south, strike with almost absolute sterility immense tracts of land, and oppose almost insurmountable barriers to communication. The second are the high mountains, of which there are five systems: the Atlas in the north, the Abyssinian mountains in the east, the Kong range in the west, the mountains of the Moon in the centre, and the South African range. These mountains attain a height of from 6,000 to 18,000 feet, and temper the heat of the region by reason of their altitude. Communication with the world outside has been facilitated by the waters which surround Africa. Two great basins, the Mediterranean and the Red sea, were in antiquity the great water highways of the ancient world. Since the discovery of the cape of Good Hope all the rest of the coast has been visited by ships in great numbers, and has witnessed the rise of commercial houses, factories, dépôts, villages and colonies. In spite of the distance it was possible to establish relations between China and Africa in early times, owing to the monsoons which, in the Indian ocean, blow regularly during six months from the northwest, and six months in the opposite direction. Commercial enterprise, however, has rarely penetrated into the immense interior of Africa, on account of the small number of large rivers there, suitable for navigation. There are in Africa three rivers of the first magnitude: the Nile, the Niger, and the Zambeze; and four of the second magnitude: the Senegal, the Gambia, the Zaïre or Congo, and the Orange river. This paucity of rivers on such a vast surface indicates either the absence of rain in the interior, which seems to be the real cause of the deserts, or the rapidity of evaporation, a natural result of the heat, or, finally, a depression in the central region attended by the formation of lakes, where the rivers are lost. The existence of this last cause,
Edition: current; Page: [29]
scarcely suspected in former times, has been confirmed in recent years by the discoveries of travelers.

—All these peculiarities taken together explain the general character and local variations of African commerce and economy. The hottest climate on earth puts its powerful and glowing imprint on the flora and fauna of the country; while the climate grows milder at the north and south, and on the highest points of land, until we reach the temperature of temperate countries, with a sub-tropical tint. It follows from this that the products of southern Europe and central Asia must be found growing together in the north and south as well as in the islands with those of regions characteristically African.

—The vast natural wealth of this continent is in the hands of the black race, who, with a thousand varieties of color, form and aptitudes, inhabit almost the whole of Africa, since they have not been subjected to foreign influence except on some narrow strips of coast-land. In the north, however, all the region of the Atlantic with the Sahara is divided between three principal varieties of the white race: the Aryans of Europe, masters of Algeria and settled somewhat numerously in the commercial towns; the Arabs, who invaded and conquered the country; and the Berbers, inhabitants of the land from time immemorial, and who are so ancient that they may be considered autochthonous. The black race begins on the southern rim of the Sahara and occupies all the rest of Africa from east to west, save a few spots on the eastern coast inhabited by Arabs, by Malay Hovas in Madagascar, by whites in different European colonies, and by the Turks in Egypt. The black race, according to a widely received opinion, inferior to the white in intellectual faculties, has been so enslaved by the latter at every point at which they have come in contact, that by an odious violation of human rights they were for centuries the principal article of export from Africa to Asia and America; but this is something which we can merely refer to here. (See SLAVERY, NEGROES.)

—Still relegated to a lower scale in social life, the black race gains but meagre benefit from the gifts of nature. Their culture, their industry, their commerce, are but rudimentary. The ground is tilled by hand, rarely with the plow. Commerce is carried on by land on the backs of camels and by caravans, and by water. But these people, no matter how low they be, are susceptible of education. The most advanced among them are those who have been most under European influence. This influence operates on their manners as well as their industry, and at length progress manifests itself everywhere in their commerce which has already attained the sum of about $240,000,000. If we consider that France alone does five times as much business as all Africa, we shall see how much the latter is behind Europe, and what inexhaustible resources she offers to the intelligent use of capital, brain and muscle.

—BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ritter, Allgemeine vergleichende Geographie, Berlin, 1822; MacQueen, A Geographical Survey of Africa, London, 1840; Murray, Historical Account of Discoveries and Travels in Africa, 3rd ed., Edinburg, 1840; Cooley, The Negrolands of the Arabs, London, 1841; and Inner Africa Laid Open, by same author; Bruce, Travels to Discover the Sources of the Nile, Edinburg, 1805-7; Speke, Journal of the Discovery of the Sources of the Nile, Edinb. 1863; Stanley's Through the Dark Continent.

JULES DUVAL.

AGE

AGE, Political Aspects of. The attainment of a certain age is one of the conditions attached to the exercise of civil and political rights. A man must have reached a certain age before he can be held responsible for his acts, or be entrusted with his own fate or that of others. This age is fixed by law and generally in accordance with the usages and customs of the country.

—But age plays a part in the political life of a people altogether independent of the rights conferred by law on those who have reached their legal majority. Youth, ripe manhood and old age do not always look on questions from the same point of view. In fact they rarely do so. Youth lacks experience. It has not gone through the process of deception. It seizes questions with a generous spirit and looks at their bright side. It does not recoil before danger, and seems disposed, at times, to seek it. Manhood is less dazzled by appearances. It has been deceived only too often, and is not so easily caught with words. Old age is often skeptical, or makes it a point of honor to remain faithful to the opinions of a lifetime. Hence youth most frequently ranges itself on the side of democracy; middle age on that of the liberals; old age with conservatives. This of course refers only to the first impulse. On reflection the young man casts aside his utopian ideas, and, later on, takes the position which reason points out as the best or toward which his temperament inclines him. The mature man hesitates in the presence of new ideas, and takes no position without first obtaining ample information. The old man is naturally hostile to change. In a greater or less degree it is necessary to convince him of the reality of the advance before he will approve the step; not unfrequently he feels it a point of honor to stand aloof; he does not wish to give the lie to the beliefs, acts and feelings of his whole life.

—There is, however, a force which frequently neutralizes or weakens the influence of age on political opinion. It is the fact of having been reared in a family with strong and well defined political convictions. In such families the sons generally take the opinions of their fathers as they do their names, and remain faithful to these opinions through life. The exceptions to this are more rare than is supposed, for here education has produced fixed ideas in the minds of the sons and caused them to take a fixed position. The child has often heard the arguments opposed to the views of his parent brought up and refuted in a manner convincing to his prejudiced mind. They
Edition: current; Page: [30]
have been ridiculed, perhaps treated with contempt. These impressions have sunk deeply into the mind of the young man. They dictate his modes of thought, so that opposing ideas have slight influence on him. He does not listen to them willingly, and if his temperament, not to mention his interest, come to the aid of education it is nearly impossible to change his mind.

—It may now be understood why democracies fix the accession to the right of suffrage at as early an age as possible, and why liberals, and still more conservatives, wish it fixed at a later age. In hereditary aristocracies political majority is often fixed at an early age because education there curbs the spirit of innovation, while in very small democratic states it is fixed at a more advanced age, each citizen looking on himself as invested with a position of trust, on which the welfare of his country depends.

MAURICE BLOCK.

AGENT

AGENT, Diplomatic. A diplomatic agent is a functionary commissioned to represent one state at the capital of another, or to negotiate and treat with that other on national affairs.

—1. HISTORY. It may be said that there were diplomatic agents from the time that two or more political communities existed and began to hold intercourse. The Egyptians, the Persians, the Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, especially the latter, received and sent political agents to discuss their public interests with other nations. The Greeks and Romans called their agents, legati oratores, and conferred on them special rights. Antiquity did not possess, however, a well developed international code. For this there are very excellent reasons, among others, that then the civilized world was frequently confined within the limits of a single empire. The middle ages witnessed the formation of distinct states, independent of one another. During many centuries, however, these states held but little intercourse. Agents were sent abroad by princes on private business which they did not distinguish from public affairs. Men of quality were also sent on formal missions. At times the pope demanded of princes to send him embassies of obeisance on their accession to power. In modern times these have been modified into simple embassies of respect or politeness. The popes alone had envoys, responsales, in early times near the kings of France and the Byzantine emperors. Later, we find permanent papal envoys, called legates, near the kings of France and England and the sovereign of the holy Roman empire.

—The kings of France were the first secular princes who established a regular system of diplomacy. Louis XI. had permanent envoys residing near the king of England and the duke of Burgundy. His son, Charles VIII., by his Neapolitan expedition, brought about a complication of affairs in Europe which forced princes to be represented near foreign sovereigns.

—The diplomatic agent is, therefore, a product of the cabinet policy which began to be developed in the 16th century.

—Diplomacy had nothing regular about it in its early stages. At first there was but one class of diplomatic agents—ambassadors who, by diplomatic fiction, were supposed to have the high office of representing the person of the sovereign. This gave rise to ceremonial difficulties and great outlay of money, which neither contributed to the dispatch of business nor smoothed the way of negotiation. In order to avoid these difficulties simple agents were sent, who had nothing to do with ceremony because they did not represent the person of the sovereign. At first they received the name of agents, then of resident ministers at foreign courts. These agents were entrusted with the earliest permanent political missions. Ambassadors became permanent only subsequently to the establishment of political missions during the course of the 16th century, and from that time, were divided into several classes. It was in the 17th century that the rules of diplomatic etiquette began to be applied to envoys of the second degree. From the treaty of Westphalia we may date the establishment of more fixed rules for diplomatic agents. The treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, had the same result as that of Westphalia. In the 18th century there were three classes of public ministers: Ministers plenipotentiary, resident ministers, and chargés d'affaires. The sphere of action of the diplomatic agent has not undergone less modification than has the rank and distinction of the classes of ministers. Under Louis XI., and generally during the 16th century, diplomacy meant deceit and trickery. The question for the diplomate was not so much to represent the general interests of his own country as to find out the secrets of the court to which he was accredited. In proportion as political interests became separated from the private business of the prince, the activity of the agent began to lose its character of finesse, sharp practice and espionage. The establishment of permanent missions which became obligatory on all states, contributed greatly to the advance of international law. By degrees the adoption of a uniform modus vivendi, and of general rules of negotiation, created a certain equality among states, and also that feeling of right which forms the basis of the European system. In this respect above all, the establishment of permanent missions has been of great service. But on the whole it is impossible to form an idea of the part played by diplomatic agents without taking into account the general system of politics prevalent in civilized states. The purer politics become, and the higher its motives, the more fruitful in good results is the action of the diplomatic agent.

—It may be said without fear of mistake that the great epoch of European diplomacy commenced with the era of absolutism, between the peace of Westphalia and the congress of Vienna, from 1648 to 1815. When a single will, looking only to its own pleasure, directed the destinies of states, the task of diplomacy was far different from what it is now. In our day public opinion urges on instead of following the march of events,
Edition: current; Page: [31]
and diplomate, king or prince must be on good terms with public opinion if he hopes to hold his place. Besides, the multiplicity of interests in our days is such as to render it impossible for one man to represent his country in everything; and it now happens more frequently than in former times, that important negotiations, such as treaties of commerce, are confided to ministers plenipotentiary ad hoc. To this must be added the numberless means of communication. When the capitals, that is, the centres of negotiation, were separated from each other by long distances, instructions, general, special, ostensible, or secret, had much more importance than now. At the present time, the diplomate, like other men, utilizes the telegraph wire. There is no longer either time or distance. Cabinets are in a condition to profit by all the changes of circumstance, to act directly and immediately. Real diplomatic action will fall more and more into the hands of the ministers of foreign affairs of their several governments, and the diplomatic agent will become more and more a simple bearer of instructions. Adroitness, the power of studying and influencing men, will doubtless continue to be necessary qualifications of a diplomate; but his responsibility and independent action will tend to decrease, and consequently the importance of his functions will lessen. Men fit to devote themselves to public affairs have now open to them other careers than that of diplomacy, which does not, as formerly, furnish the only way, except that of arms, to honor, influence and reputation. It is much less sought after than in the beginning of this century, and great names are less frequently found in it.

—II. RIGHT OF LEGATION. The right of legation is active and passive, that is, the state which has the right to receive diplomatic envoys has also the right to send them to other states. The right of legation is a consequence of sovereignty. Its exercise belongs to the representative of the state. It is optional and not obligatory. Nevertheless the refusal to receive the minister of a foreign power in time of peace may be considered as a cause of rupture, if the refusal be not founded on plausible reasons. Among these the most important may be the person of the minister himself, who may be objectionable to the government to which he is accredited. When one state denies to another the right to accredit ministers to it, it refrains from exercising the like right itself. The right of legation having its origin in sovereignty, belongs equally to monarchies and republics. The class to which a minister may belong is a question for the government which appoints him to decide. Nevertheless this principle is subject to certain restrictions resulting from inequality from the standpoint of diplomatic ceremonial. In general the right of sending ministers of the first class is reserved to states whose rulers enjoy royal honors, and to great republics. Dependent, semisovereign states can not accredit diplomatic agents. A state connected with another which is charged to negotiate concerning their common interests with third parties, has not the right to receive or accredit diplomatic agents. Such are Norway at present, and Poland under the constitution of 1815. The grand duchy of Luxemburg was in this condition for a long time, but since 1867 that country, which is connected with Holland through the person of the sovereign, has special diplomatic representatives. The states forming part of the German empire have not the right of legation. Some of them, nevertheless, still exercise that right by simple toleration. The Danubian principalities and other vassal states of Turkey maintain semi-official agents, but matters of importance which concern these dependent states are treated by the Turkish representative. A limited right of receiving public ministers is sometimes accorded to governors general, viceroys, etc. A monarch who has abdicated can no longer exercise the right of legation. A more disputed question is, whether this right ceases with the involuntary loss of the throne. The answer here is dictated by reasons of state. Formerly, the legitimate but dethroned monarch retained the right of embassy which was refused to the usurper. At present, when the tendency is more and more to recognize accomplished facts as the basis of new rights, the world is inclined to drop the distinction between governments de facto and de jure. From the moment that the successor of the dethroned prince really represents authority, it is in order to receive his envoys. It is admitted, in any and every case, that the reception of a minister being equivalent to a recognition of the sovereign whose mandatory he is, the minister of a dethroned monarch can not be received with the same title and in the same official character as the minister of the monarch who supplanted him. There is one exception, however, in favor of the pope. Since Italy took possession of Rome certain states have a representative near the King of Italy and also one near the chief of the Catholic church.

—III. CLASSIFICATION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS. They may first of all be classed in accordance with the object of their mission. There are ministers for negotiation, ministers of etiquette and of ceremony. There are embassies of excuse, of obedience, or reverence. Finally, the mission of a diplomatic agent may be permanent or temporary, extraordinary or ordinary. These distinctions, however, do not refer to what is specially understood by classification, which has essentially in view the rank of the diplomatic agent. The difficulties raised formerly on account of ceremonial and the disputes on questions of rank led the eight powers who subscribed to the treaty of Vienna to adopt one and the same rule on this subject. By the act of March 19, 1815, diplomatic agents were divided into three classes: Ambassadors, legates or nuncios; envoys or ministers accredited near sovereigns; chargés d'affaires, accredited near ministers of foreign affairs. Ambassadors and legates or nuncios alone have the representative character. Diplomatic envoys on extraordinary
Edition: current; Page: [32]
missions have no superiority of rank on that account. Diplomatic envoys take rank in their classes in accordance with the date of the official notification of their arrival. It became necessary for each state to fix a uniform mode of reception for the diplomatic envoys of each class.

—The protocol of Aix-la-Chapelle, dated Nov. 21, 1818, added a fourth class, that of ministers resident, who took rank between ministers of the second order and chargés d'affaires. It is proper to add that but few states are represented by ministers resident. The most numerous classes are the second and fourth. In the majority of cases governments accredit near foreign courts diplomatic agents bearing the title of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. This title was first employed by the English. Notwithstanding the regulation of 1815, a species of superiority over the ordinary was attributed to the envoy extraordinary. This is the reason why most ministers on a permanent mission take the title of envoy extraordinary. Diplomatic agents of the first three classes are accredited from one sovereign to another. The fourth class, that of chargés d'affaires, receive their credentials from the ministers of foreign affairs of their own country, and are accredited to the ministers of foreign affairs of the government near whose court they reside. The rules of Aix-la-Chapelle do not hinder any power from fixing the hierarchy of the diplomatic corps as it thinks fit. In France the hierarchy is at present the following: Ambas sadors, envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, chargés d'affaires, secretaries of embassy, secretaries of legation, attachés or diplomatic aspirants. The consuls general of France in Mussulman countries and in South America have the rank of chargés d'affaires. Diplomatic tradition ascribes to an ambassador (see AMBASSADOR) the privilege of representing more particularly the person of his sovereign; it has been concluded from this that he has a right to be received by the prince near whom he is accredited every time he presents himself, but in constitutional countries this right, if it still exists, is purely honorary, for the sovereign can not make any decision without consulting his ministers. The four classes of ministers admitted by the protocol of Aix-la-Chapelle, Nov. 21, 1818, comprise, properly speaking, public ministers. Besides these classes the following diplomatic agents may be mentioned: 1st. Semi-official agents sent by nonrecognized or usurping governments. These are not members of the diplomatic corps. They have not letters of credence, but simply letters of recommendation. 2nd. Commissioners with a special mission, such as the fixing of boundaries or the settling of claims. 3rd. Great personages charged with important missions in which it is desired to avoid diplomatic ceremonial without at the same time placing the envoy in an inferior position. The public minister establishes his character by the delivery of his letters of credence, which are presented to the sovereign when the minister belongs to one of the first three classes, or to the minister of foreign affairs when he is merely a chargé d'affaires.

—IV. PRIVILEGES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS. These were formerly very great, but at present they consist especially in the following: 1st. Inviolability of the person of the agent and the couriers of the legation. 2nd. Exemption from foreign jurisdiction. There is a certain number of undetermined questions here, the solution of which often depends on the manner in which the case presents itself, for the exemption from civil jurisdiction is not absolute. One thing well established, however, is, that the building in which the legation is located is inviolable, and that the local authorities can not cross its threshold even to serve a legal writ. Neither is the exemption of the diplomatic agent from criminal jurisdiction absolute. It does not extend to cases of flagrant conspiracy against the government to which he is accredited. Finally, as to the suite of the minister. There is a distinction to be made between the suite proper and persons simply attached to the legation, and even among the latter a distinction may be made between natives and foreigners. 3rd. The right of exercising freely the agent's religion in the residence of the legation. This privilege will cease to be one whenever universal freedom of worship shall prevail. 4th. The preceding prerogatives belong to diplomatic agents only in countries where they are resident in an official capacity. In countries through which they are passing, these privileges are purely a question of courtesy.

—V. DUTIES OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS. To the privileges of diplomatic agents there are corresponding duties, resulting either from the nature of their functions or from that of their privileges themselves. If a diplomatic agent enjoys inviolability it is on condition of not going beyond his proper sphere of action. Straight-forward honesty in his intercourse with the government to which he is accredited, is the first duty of a diplomatic agent. In case of offenses committed by public ministers against the safety of the state in which they are resident, their persons and papers may be seized if the danger be pressing, and they may be sent out of the country. If circumstances are not sufficiently imperative to oblige a recourse to such violent action, the recall of the objectionable minister is asked of his government. History affords many examples of both these cases. It is difficult to fix rules of action for exceptional cases. The residence of the legation should never become a centre of intrigue against the government of the country, and the minister should never maintain any relations with the chiefs of parties which might give umbrage to those charged with the direction of state affairs. In a political crisis, during the interval between the overthrow of one government and the establishment of another, the conduct of the minister ought to tend toward allaying irritation and not precipitating a rupture. Individual tact is the best counselor in these difficult circumstances. It is not possible to act in the
Edition: current; Page: [33]
same manner in all places. Moderation in one country would be weakness in another. It must be acknowledged that diplomatic agents generally observe neutrality and a proper reserve. Conspiracies like that of Cellamare are unheard of in our day. Still, some eight or nine years ago many complaints were heard of the conduct of the Sardinian minister at Florence in 1859, and of the minister of the same power in 1860 at Naples; and an English minister boasted of the influence which he said he had in causing the overthrow of Louis Philippe's government.

—Besides, a diplomatic agent ought not to confine himself to any one class of society, if he wishes to know and be able to describe the condition of the country in which he resides. Diplomates have been justly reproached for restricting themselves to a social circle which is at once narrow and cosmopolitan, being the same everywhere without a local character of its own. In fine, the diplomate should be zealous in defending the rights of his countrymen. There is nothing which makes a government more respected abroad, and, as a consequence, at home, than the protection which it affords its own citizens, not per fas et nefas, but whenever the right of the person in question seems beyond doubt.

—VI. CEREMONIAL. Questions of ceremonial were formerly very difficult to settle, and caused many a controversy. In our day whenever points of etiquette are not settled by usage, means are sought to avoid them, and generally with success. Article 7, of the treaty of Vienna, lays it down that when a treaty is to be signed between several powers, which recognize the alternat,3 the order to be followed in signing shall be decided by lot. At present the alphabetical order is more frequently used. In ceremonies the place of honor is the centre, and each member of the diplomatic corps takes his place according to his rank on the right of this centre. But it is frequently sought to avoid this ceremonial arrangement. Chance is allowed to assign each his place, or it is declared that each place should be considered as the first. The formalities for a reception audience differ according to the rank of the envoy. An ambassador has the right of wearing his hat in the presence of the sovereign before reading his address of audience to him. Ministers of the first class alone have the right to the title of excellency. They may ride in a carriage drawn by six horses. Papal nuncios at Catholic courts have precedence of all other envoys.

—VII. A diplomatic mission comes to an end: 1st. Through the extinction of sovereignty in the state which sent the envoy, or in the state to which he is accredited; 2nd. By the death or abdication of the envoy's own sovereign, or the sovereign near whom he is accredited; 3rd. By the extinction of his letters of credence; 4th. By the annulling of his powers; 5th. By the recall or promotion of the envoy; 6th. In consequence of diplomatic rupture; 7th. By the accomplishment of his mission, if it is temporary or special. (See AMBASSADOR, CONSUL, DIPLOMACY.)

JULES GRENIER and MAURICE BLOCK.

AGENTS

AGENTS, Natural, a politico-economical term. The earlier economists were wont to say that three distinct elements concur in the production of wealth, to wit: land, labor and capital, the last being nothing else than previous labor accumulated. But this nomenclature soon seemed too narrow, at least in regard to the first of the terms composing it, in that it appeared to imply that land, properly speaking, is the only one of the natural forces which associates itself with human labor. It is evident that such is not the truth. Man finds agents everywhere in nature to second his efforts. The sea spontaneously yields to him a number of products which he needs only to gather up. The air, the wind, water courses, electricity, all the powers of the physical world, supply him with force of which he makes useful employment in the series of his industrial labors.

—The need has been felt, therefore, of putting in the place of land, words of more general meaning, applicable to all the powers of nature whose existence is useful to man. To-day the term natural agents is almost universally accepted.

—Natural agents are of various kinds. Some, like arable land, mines and quarries, furnish both the materials and the workshop of production. They constitute the foundation of all industry. To the arable land, the mines and the quarries may be added the sea, lakes and rivers, in so far as they are considered productive of fish; the others are merely simple agents, aids which second the labor of man either of themselves and naturally, or after they have been, so to speak, tamed and conquered. Such, for example, are the heat of the sun, which develops and ripens plants; the rains which make them fruitful; the water courses which turn hydraulic wheels; the wind which moves ships at sea, or whirls the windmill's arms on land; the seas, lakes and rivers, in so far as they are navigable routes; the weight of bodies, electricity, the force of expansion or contraction of metals, and generally, all the forces which man has found the means of bending to his service.

—At no time has human industry been entirely deprived of the aid of natural agents; otherwise it would have produced nothing. But the number of forces which come to man's aid goes on increasing in proportion as his knowledge extends and his means of action grow. Man taxes his brain to conquer the powers of nature and shape them to his use, making them work to his profit, and he gradually succeeds in getting from them the better service. There is scarcely a discovery in science, or at least in the industrial arts, whose object it is not either to put some natural power hitherto unknown at the service of man or to make a new use of an agent already known. It is thus that the discovery of Daguerre compelled the rays of light to trace the image of external objects with a marvellous truth which the pencil of the painter will never
Edition: current; Page: [34]
attain. It is thus that electricity, that power hitherto so mysterious and disobedient, is forced to furnish us with the means of instant communication with most distant places. The admirable discovery of the steam engine is nothing else than putting a natural agent at the service of man, a natural agent of incalculable power which has been successfully mastered. From day to day the number of natural agents in our service increases, and we obtain from them better work. This is one of the aspects of human progress, and not the one least worthy of interest.

—This progress is visible in all directions. New mines and new quarries are constantly being discovered. On the other hand, the extent of arable land increases, either by the clearing up of forests, the draining of morasses or the converting of plains and heather into cultivated fields. In the meanwhile new seas are discovered by navigators, their surfaces are explored more exactly and their depths are sounded with increasing accuracy. Lakes by degrees disclose the wealth which they conceal. Rivers and lakes are confined within their beds, and, freed from the obstacles which barred their course, they become, thanks to the labor of engineers, channels of navigation which grow more perfect every day. The force of gravitation, which human ingenuity at first knew so little how to use, and which was even an obstacle to it in most cases, has become, owing to the discoveries of science, one of our most powerful auxiliaries at the present day. Again, the most mysterious forces of nature, as well as the most hidden properties of bodies, formerly rebellious to such a degree that frequently they were a source of trouble to man in his labors, but now conquered and pliant, have been put under contribution, and have become useful instruments in our hands. This is one of the chief causes of the relative fruitfulness of modern industry as compared with the industry of ancient times. "Analyze the progress made by industry," says J. B. Say, "and you will find that it can be reduced to having turned to best advantage the forces and the things which nature has placed at the disposal of man."

—Among the natural agents of industry some are capable of being appropriated, others not. And this is true not only of those which constitute the ground-work itself on which industry operates, but also of those which act only as simple auxiliaries. Thus arable land, mines and quarries can be and are almost always appropriated. But the sea, which is productive as well as the land, though not in the same degree, since it produces fish, coral, pearls, salt, etc., the sea, we repeat, is not capable of appropriation, unless perhaps in some of its interior bays. A waterfall considered as a motive power can be appropriated, and we see in practice that most waterfalls have become private property in civilized countries. But the wind, which fills, very nearly, the same office either for windmills on land or vessels which sail on the seas, is not susceptible of appropriation, and there are really but rare and very exceptional cases in which we may say that it was appropriated to a certain extent.

—This distinction is important because of the serious consequences which it involves. It has therefore been laid down carefully by all economists.

—The services of unappropriated natural agents is always gratuitous, in this sense, at least, that all men are free to use them gratuitously, on the sole condition of assuming whatever care and expense may be necessary to reap a benefit from them. On the contrary, the service of natural agents already appropriated, is generally burdened with certain dues for the benefit of those who have become their owners. It can be readily understood that he who has succeeded in obtaining exclusive possession of a productive force, should not wish to yield the use of it to others without compensation. If he lends or rents it he is paid for its use. If he uses it himself for the purpose of selling the products which he obtains from it, he charges a little more for these products than the ordinary cost of production.

—Looking at things from this point of view we are tempted to believe at first that the appropriation of natural agents is always an evil. But reflection is not slow in correcting this first impression. If it be true that the man who has become master of a productive force of nature to the exclusion of his fellows generally exacts a price for its use, it must be remarked also that he is impelled by his own interest to increase its power when he can do so by his labor and his pains. There are certain natural agents which work for man spontaneously, but the greater number need to be constrained by various means which science suggests, and which are sometimes very costly. Who would burden himself with these costs, if he were not sure of reaping a benefit? The appropriation of these agents therefore is often necessary, since, without it, we should not obtain the services which they can render, and in this case it is surely beneficial to all.

—Let us hear J. B. Say on this subject. "If the instruments furnished by nature were all private property, the use of them would not be gratuitous, the man who became master of the winds would let their service to us for money; carriage of goods by sea would be more expensive and products consequently would be dearer.

—On the other hand, if natural instruments capable of becoming property, as tracts of land, had not become such, no one would run the risk of making them useful lest he might not enjoy the fruit of his labors. We could not have at any price commodities in the production of which and has a part, which would be equivalent to excessive dearness. Thus, although the product of a field may be made dearer by the rental of the field which must be paid to its owner, this product is less dear than if the field had not become property."

—These words sum up sufficiently well the two aspects of the question.

—It must be said, nevertheless, that certain questions of another order are connected with this subject, which it suffices to refer to here. Can the appropriation of natural agents, useful or not, be justified in law? Is it
Edition: current; Page: [35]
legitimate in its origin, leaving out of consideration the advantages admitted to result from it?

—To what point may this appropriation be extended? It has long been applied to arable lands, mines and quarries, to water courses, and a great number of other tangible natural agents. Can it also be applied legitimately and with the same advantage to those intangible natural agents whose services industry is enlisting every day by aid of new methods which it invents?

—There remains a last question raised by some distinguished economists, and which merits a solution. It is: Are the services of appropriated natural agents really paid for, if the price which one is obliged to give the proprietors for their use is anything else in reality than the just remuneration for their actual labor or for their accumulated previous labor? (See APPROPRIATION, LAND, RENT.)

CHARLES COQUELIN.

AGIO

AGIO. Agio is the corruption of an Italian word which signifies additional value. It meant at first a price exceeding the ordinary or natural value of a thing. Later, it was used more especially to designate the difference in value between metallic money and paper money, or between one metallic money and another. And it is with this latter signification that it has come down to us. In the old banks of deposit, such as those of Amsterdam and Hamburg, bank money (banco) had generally a value a little different from that of the same denomination which circulated in the country. Thus, at Amsterdam the ducatoon (banco) had almost always a little greater value than the current ducatoon. At Hamburg the crown (banco) was sometimes more and sometimes less in value than the crown of the empire which circulated in the country. This difference was called and is still called by the name of agio. Several economists have thought it worth while to seek the cause of this agio, and the question was really not without interest. But they had not at hand all the data necessary to solve it. Some have adopted without examination the explanation given by Adam Smith. Unfortunately this explanation is more ingenious than correct. It is not astonishing that the author of the "Wealth of Nations" should have been deceived as to certain details relative to a foreign institution little known at that time, and concerning which he had only imperfect information. Adam Smith supposes that the money deposited in the bank of Amsterdam was always received there at its intrinsic value, and that it acquired there a superior value from the fact, that, being put in a secure place, it was sheltered from changes to which current money was constantly exposed. "The money of such banks," he says, "being better than the common currency of the country, necessarily bore an agio, which was greater or smaller according as the currency was supposed to be more or less degraded below the standard of the state. The agio of the bank of Hamburg, for example, which is said to be commonly about 14 per cent., is the supposed difference between the good standard money of the state and the clipped, worn and diminished currency poured into it from all the neighboring states." Speaking, afterward, of the credit which the bank opens for every depositor on its books, "this credit." he says, "was called bank money, which, as it represented money exactly according to the standard of the mint, was always of the same real value, and intrinsically worth more than current money."

—And further on he adds: "Bank money, over and above both its intrinsic superiority to currency, and the additional value which this demand necessarily gives it, has likewise some other advantages. It is secure from fire, robbery and other accidents; the city of Amsterdam is bound for it; it can be paid away by a simple transfer, without the trouble of counting, or the risk of transporting it from one place to another. In consequence of those different advantages, it seems from the beginning to have borne an agio."

—All the advantages which Adam Smith here enumerates are real; but, as every one could make these advantages his own to the extent that he desired, it does not appear why this would have sufficed to secure to the bank money a value always superior to that of current money, if there had not been some other cause for it. When he adds, further on, that depositors avoided drawing their money from the bank, through fear of having to pay for its safe keeping, and finds therein a new reason for the superiority in value of the bank money, he errs; for the deposits were never made for more than six months, and when they were renewed at the end of that time, it was necessary to pay again for their safe keeping. The fact is, that there were exceptional dues to pay when a new account was opened.

—The exact facts are as follows: From the beginning the bank of Amsterdam laid it down as a rule not to receive money deposited with it at its full value, and to attribute to it a value always 5 per cent, less than its real value. Thus, the ducatoon of Holland, which had a current value of 63 stubers (3 florius and 3 stubers) was received at the bank for only 60 stubers, or 3 florins, and the individual who deposited it was credited for every ducatoon according to this scale. Every depositor had, therefore, 5 per cent. more than he was credited with by the books. This did not prevent the bank from restoring to him the full amount when he withdrew his deposit, with the exception of a small charge which the bank claimed. This was a method of counting, and nothing more. But it suffices to explain why the money of the bank was always worth something more than current money. It was not, as Adam Smith thought, on account of the preference given to the money of the bank; it was only because the bank, while adopting the denominations of the current money, applied them to values really greater.

—The bank money, far from being held in very high favor, was, we are inclined to think, looked upon with some slight discredit, either on account of the difficulty of withdrawal
Edition: current; Page: [36]
or of some other cause. In fact, as we have just seen, the bank money had always a real advantage of about 5 per cent. over the current money. The agio, therefore, should have risen to 5 to represent par. Now, it was almost always under that figure, generally between 3 and 4, although the variations were sometimes greater. In certain extraordinary cases, it disappeared altogether, and the value of the bank money fell below that of the current money. This happened, for example, in 1672. It is true that it was on the occasion of the approach of the armies of Louis XIV. But this situation did not last long, the bank having immediately resolved to restore all deposits.

—At Hamburg the circumstances were different. At first the bank of this city did not wish to establish, as at Amsterdam, a difference between its own and the current money. It had adopted as a type the crown of the empire, which was worth 540 ases of Holland, and had accepted it at this rate; but later it was constrained to depart from this rule, in consequence of alterations of the coinage undertaken by certain sovereigns. In the 17th century, the emperor Leopold I., and in the 18th century Maria Theresa, of Austria, over-turned the plan of the Hamburg people by coining, as Busch says, crowns of the empire, which were really worth only 516 ases.

—A certain number of these new crowns having slipped into the bank, unknown to its administrators, a great embarrassment in making payments was the result. As it was not known who should bear the loss, they wished to distribute it among all the depositors, by paying them partly in crowns of standard quality and partly in adulterated crowns. To straighten the accounts an average was sought between the old and the new crown; it was found that this mean was 528 ases to each crown. This is how the crown banco of Hamburg was fixed at this time at 528 ases, an ideal value inferior to that of the ancient crown of the empire, but greater than that of the new crown, and which has remained unchanged in the midst of the variations upward and downward, which the current money underwent.

—Thus, at Amsterdam on account of a premeditated design of the founders of the bank, at Hamburg through circumstances more potent than the will of the administration, an actual difference in value was established between the money of the bank and the current money. This naturally explains the agio. It should be added, however, that the agio fell or rose according as the money of the bank was more or less in demand. If there was a great number of payments to make in bank money, certificates of deposit delivered by the bank were more sought for, and the agio rose. In the opposite case it fell. But these are natural fluctuations which we need not stop to analyze. It is exactly like the varying relations established between the respective values of gold and silver.

—At Amsterdam the course of the agio was quoted every day, and known by all interested parties. It is probably the variations to which it was subject, and the speculations of which these variations became the object, that gave birth to the word Agiotage.

CHARLES COQUELIN.

AGIOTAGE

AGIOTAGE. Commercial speculation is useful to society. Agiotage (stock-jobbing) is harmful to it. Besides, it is always contrary to good morals. Speculation takes its natural course and develops in free and peaceful countries; stock-jobbing is never so active as in times of calamity and national trouble. Speculation is a regular operation; stock-jobbing is a game in which the players cherish the purpose of cheating, if need be. Speculation is an investment of capital intelligently made by the purchase of commodities, etc., at a low price, with the intention of selling them afterward when the price rises; the difference in the prices covers the expense of keeping the goods, the interest on the capital employed, and the profit of the speculator. By the first operation speculation prevents the fall of prices to a degree which would be fatal to producers; by the second it stops an excessive rise which would be disadvantageous to consumers. In stock-jobbing, on the contrary, the purchase is made with the intent of selling as soon as possible. Most frequently a bargain is made on time in order not to-employ capital. There is not the least intention of receiving the thing bought. Again, a sale is made with a promise to deliver a thing not possessed and which the seller has no idea of acquiring. It is calculated in the interval to effect payment by a contrary operation at prices whose difference would be a profit. Fortuitous circumstances are depended on to bring about this result; also the chances of the harvest, the effect of good or bad news which is invented and spread abroad as needed. The stock-jobber, in a word, bases his profit only on a loss which he causes others. When his operation is over, no service is rendered, no value produced. What is produced is a simple transfer of wealth, while a heavy blow is struck at public morality.

—As the passion for play is one of the infirmities natural to man, stock-jobbing does not fail to increase whenever circumstances produce great or rapid changes in the prices of things. Men do not fail at such times to gamble in bonds, stocks and merchandise. According to the times, stock-jobbing has been directed to the shares of the India company, Mississippi lands, the assignats, French national property, building lots in cities, shares in industrial enterprises of every kind, the working of mines, the draining of swamps, canal or railroad enterprises, Marseilles soap, oil, coffee, sugar, bread, etc.

—If it were desired to write the history of stock-jobbing, the year 1719 would occupy a large place in it. Law's system reached its highest point of development at that time; intoxication was at its height; everyone thought to make a fortune by what was called in France dealing in paper (le commerce des papiers.) For those who were skillful enough and realized on the paper in time, it became positive wealth; but disenchantment
Edition: current; Page: [37]
and ruin overtook all others; and in the month of December, of the same year, a rapid fall of values set in.

—In view of the deficit and financial embarrassments of every kind left by Louis XIV., the regent, after having had recourse to the ordinary expedients of loans, the selling of favors and adulterating money, listened to the suggestions of Law. Educated, skillful, enthusiastic, Law, who had not been able to succeed in Scotland, his native country, was none the less convinced himself of the soundness and practicability of all his financial views. According to him, wealth is greater in proportion as the chief instrument of exchange becomes more abundant, and the banknote above all is useful, in this, that it lends itself to as rapid an increase as possible of the representative sign. But as the sovereign power of the state alone gives value to money, the bank note, in order to keep its value, should rest on the state. To gain this support, a bank should accept the obligations of the state, as capable of forming an important part of its capital. On the other hand, it was necessary that the bank should be a joint stock institution, and in order to attract shareholders, it was necessary to offer them the bait of commercial profits, by obtaining the concession of certain great privileges. The system had thus as its essential elements bank notes and shares of stock.

—Law obtained, May 2, 1716, the privilege of founding a private bank, for which the capital might be subscribed, three-fourths payable in state paper. The following year he obtained a decision that the notes issued by the bank should be received as cash by the State. Nevertheless the success of the scheme was far from remarkable; the shares were below par, and it became necessary to lend them some new attraction. Commerce with distant countries was carried on in those days by privileged companies, and there was in a monopoly of this kind to be found all the chances fitted to awaken hope in the minds of men. Law was permitted to succeed Crozat in the right of developing the commerce of Louisiana and the beaver trade of Canada. Consequently his bank founded the Occidental Company. When we to-day see the degree of wealth of the vast country drained by the Mississippi, and the present splendor of New Orleans, we can easily understand what were the illusions of the people who were promised that the development of this part of the globe would be carried on for their benefit.

—The director of these enterprises governed at the same time the finances of the state. The general bank soon became a royal bank. To the monopoly of the commerce of the west was added the monopoly of the commerce of China and the Indies. The Occidental Company, which besides had acquired the lease of the fermes générales, and also the monopoly of commerce with Senegal, finally assumed the title of the India Company. Every transformation was followed by the issue of new stock. The wish to use the state notes, which were depreciated, attracted shareholders at first, then the habit of trading in stock commenced to take root. Stock-jobbing did the rest. Law excited it by every means in his power, and at the beginning of 1719 he inaugurated the margin market, by buying at par 200 shares of the Occidental Company, paying 40,000 livres on account of 100,000 livres which represented their value, and consenting to lose the earnest money thus given, should he not fulfill his engagement within a fixed time.

—The centre of operations was in Rue Quincampoix, occupied then by bankers and money changers. The report of sudden fortunes made in this place attracted the crowd to it. Operations soon reached dimensions which would appear fabulous even to-day. The gutter of this street was called the Mississippi, and anecdotes abound concerning the strange incidents which happened in those places. It is related that a hunchback made a fortune by letting out his hump to serve as a desk on which to sign contracts.

—The first shares had for a long time failed to reach par, 500 livres. The new ones, with the same nominal value, were issued at 5,000 livres. At the end of November, 1719, they were sold at forty times their nominal value. During this time, paper money was increased imprudently, and the moment of the crash drew near. The most adroit stock-jobbers commenced to retire first. They kept up prices as long as they could, in order to have time to change the fictitious values which they held for real values; but the bulk of the public, composed of simple people and bungling speculators, supported the whole weight of the bankruptcy.

—Since that time stock-jobbing has not again appeared with that ensemble of characteristics which lent it, for a time, an effect truly dramatic. Operations have been more varied; stock gambling has become in some degree regulated, by division and by spending itself on objects of different kinds. State paper has furnished it its most constant and most regular food. Representative governments have been obliged to keep their accounts in public and to give up the precarious resource, left to absolute monarchies, of adulterating money. It was easy to make it a principle that the national honor is bound to the punctual payment of debts contracted in the name of the country. In this way, public credit has been developed; but, with this system, expenses have increased in gigantic proportions, loan has succeeded loan, and the public debt of every state has saddled the future with a heavy burden of interest.

—In order to facilitate the circulation of loans, they established the non-distinction of origin of debts in entering them in the state ledger. State bonds were exempt from seizure by attachment against the owner. Markets were opened at which daily sales were made at auction and for cash; but, above all, the passion for gambling was excited by special privileges reserved to the brokers. Real operations served as a cloak to a much greater number of fictitious ones, and the confusion of transactions of different kinds was so great, that in sales on time, some of which, no doubt, were
Edition: current; Page: [38]
very legitimate, it was difficult to discover which were the mere result of stock-jobbing. The number and nature of transactions were therefore multiplied.

—At different times, especially in 1827 and 1828, there was veritable stock-jobbing in building lots in Paris. Peace, and commercial prosperity which resulted from it, increased the population With greater prosperity every one sought to obtain better lodgings, cleaner, better situated, better ventilated: whence the necessity of new buildings. Speculation sought the best investments, and when a happy choice had been made, the sale was attended by a large profit. Hence large pieces of land were sought for, in spaces where new wards could be opened, or new streets laid out. So far the transaction was quite legitimate. It was not always so, however, with the means employed to obtain purchasers for the land and raise the price of the lots. For this the ordinary tricks of jobbing were put in play. One of the means employed, with disastrous consequences to many people, was to build houses in many parts of the new ward without spending a cent. For this purpose the speculator, who had bought all the land, selected a lot desirably situated for a residence for himself. He had plans made by an architect. Then he called in contractors of masonry and carpentry, blacksmiths, joiners, roofers, glaziers and painters. He asked each contractor to undertake his part of the building in consideration of pay in land in the same ward, worth more than the work to be done, and at prices which stock-jobbing had raised greatly. Many sub-contractors allowed themselves to be taken by the bait, proud of thus becoming land owners. They commenced to build houses on their own lots, giving their own services for the lots. One returned in carpentry the value which he received in masonry, another in roofing what he received in lock-smithing, and so on to the end of the chapter. But the speculation did not always succeed. The ground was sold at too high a price; the apartments were rarely rented, and the houses still more rarely sold. All this work was accomplished only by delivery of materials by dealers in timber, iron, plaster, stone, paints, materials of every kind. These dealers prosecuted the sub-contractors, and the latter demanded the sale of the houses constructed by them. A settlement was generally effected at a low price. The original speculator became the purchaser, and thus found himself possessor of lots covered with houses, without other expense to himself than the original payment for the bare ground on which he had conceived the ingenious idea of laying out streets. Let this suffice as an example.

—The chances of gambling will, doubtless, have at all times a great attraction for many people; and it will be difficult to abolish stock-jobbing altogether; but it is beyond doubt that the principal remedy for the evil is found, in this as in many other things, in complete liberty. What is needed after this is a repressive law, clearly defining all kinds of fraud, and competent to reach them. There is still another remedy of real efficacy, but which, it appears, our modern legislators will not give us so soon. It is necessary to stop the enormous public expenses, annual deficits, loans which alienate the future, and consume the savings of the present. Then there would be no further need of the aid of those who subscribe to, and negotiate public loans, and there would no longer be any interest in protecting stock-jobbery. (See PRODUCTS ON PAPER, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE). Consult, upon this subject, J. B. Say, Cours complet, 2e ed., t. II., ch. 16, de l'agiotage. (Collect, des princip. Econom.)

HORACE SAY.

AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE. The connection between agriculture and politics is not very apparent, but it is vital. Let us first show the influence of a nation's politics on its agriculture, and then discuss the influence of agriculture on the political life of a nation.

—The following words of a clever minister of finance have been frequently quoted: Give me good politics, and I will give you good finances. It might be said with equal truth: Give me good politics, and I will give you good agriculture. Agriculture can really flourish only in a country where person and property are respected, where taxes are apportioned equitably and spent with economy, where the good condition of the means of communication increases the extent of the market; in a word, where liberty, justice and peace prevail. Let us take as an example, two nations at the opposite extremities of Europe: England and Turkey. The former has a foggy climate and a wet soil; the latter the finest of climates and the richest of soils. In spite of this, we find that for the same extent of surface, agriculture is a hundred times more productive in England than in Turkey. Why is this? Because England has a good political constitution, while Turkey groans under a wretched government.

—Insecurity is the greatest scourge of agriculture, as well as of every other industry. No one tills and no one sows unless he is sure of the harvest. The first duty of a government is to guarantee the security of person and property. When this condition is wanting, everything is wanting. Insecurity arises from two causes, either from an excess of weakness or an excess of power, in the government. Anarchic governments are powerless to defend private interests; despotic governments disregard these interests themselves. Both vices are found too frequently united, and governments which respect the rights of their own subjects the least are, at the same time, very little concerned with making them respected by others.

—The second duty of a government toward agriculture is this: to tax it as little as possible for the security guaranteed it. Taxes and soldiers are necessary to make law respected, but neither should be in excess. Burdensome taxes and enormous armies exhaust agriculture, by imposing on it exorbitant sacrifices, either in men or money.

—The taxes which affect agriculture most directly are those levied on land. These taxes may be
Edition: current; Page: [39]
doubly harmful, by their amount and apportionment. An unequal or too arbitrary assessment may have as fatal effects as an excessive tax. Under the ancient régime in France the sum total of taxation was in no way excessive, but it was collected with such violence, so unequally and with such attendant abuses, that it ruined the rural districts. It often happened that tillers of the soil preferred to abandon their land rather than pay the tax. By the side of these overburdened lands were others enjoying almost complete exemption from taxation. Even now complaints are made in France of inequalities in the collection of the land tax, but these differences bear no relation to those of the olden time.

—Agriculturists imagine that indirect taxes do not concern them; they are mistaken. Indirect taxation, by affecting everything consumed, weighs upon agriculture in two ways: it raises the price of the commodities which agriculturists consume, and lowers the price of those which they sell.4 It is a bad calculation on the part of the tillers of the soil, therefore, to allow indirect taxation to increase indefinitely, while land taxes do not increase. The sum total of public receipts press on all industries. Agriculturists pay their part of indirect taxation, just as other taxpayers pay their part of the land tax, through the rise in the price of agricultural products. There is a complete solidarity in a nation. Under whatever form it be collected, a tax is legitimate only when it is necessary; it should be strictly reduced to the exigencies of the public service.

—According to the happy expression of Montesquieu, agriculture has all the more interest that the State should not derive from the real wants of the people the wherewithal to satisfy imaginary wants, since extravagant outlay is always made far from the agricultural districts and in opposition to their interests. It is in great cities and especially in capitals, that the imaginary wants, spoken of by Montesquieu, are developed, that sumptuous entertainments are frequent and the prodigality that ruins and demoralizes is found. The more parasites of every kind swarm in them, the more is the capital which might support useful labor lost in unproductive employments. Agriculture loses in these places both the money which it gives and that which it fails to receive.

—Among the unproductive expenses of a country, one of the most fatal is that of great armies. Every nation contains an enormous number of women, children, old people and infirm, who furnish but a small contingent to the labor of the nation. The number of strong and vigorous workmen does not exceed a sixth of the whole population; that is, in France, for example, it is 6,000,000 out of 36,000,000. An army of 600,000 men takes away, therefore, one-tenth of the labor power of the country, and it is the agricultural interest which almost entirely incurs this loss. If the same security could be obtained with half the army, 300,000 additional men would be annually employed in the labor of agriculture, and would increase its production in that proportion.

—On the other hand, the first rank among productive expenses is occupied by public works, not by the building of palaces and theatres, but by such as facilitate the movement of men and products over the whole face of the country. Harbors, canals, rivers, bridges, roads of every description, from country roads to railroads, everything capable of quickening commerce has the greatest effect on agriculture. Every industry prospers through the extent of the market, and an abundance of the means of communication extends the market. In France a thousand examples prove this; either in proportion as carriage roads are extended, or new railroads are opened, whole districts take on a new face at once.

—When a government has guaranteed to agriculture security, moderation in public expenses, the reduction of the army to what is strictly necessary, and a good system of roads, etc., it has fulfilled all its duties toward it. To go further, would be useless and might become dangerous.

—We find the minds of statesmen divided between two systems of farming. One party extols the advantages of large farming; the other, small proprietorship and small farming. The discussion of the relative merits of these systems is proper and useful enough when confined to theory, but harmful and bad when it is sought to impose one or the other of the two systems by force or by law on a country.

—English legislation here favors concentration of property through primogeniture and entailment. French legislation, on the contrary, favors division of land. At first sight the English system seems to be superior to the French, from the point of view of agricultural interest, since agriculture is twice as rich in England as in France; but on closer examination it is seen that the real effect of their legislation is not so great. First of all, the land is more divided in England and less divided in France than is generally supposed, because the force of things in both countries corrects the extreme provisions of the law; and secondly, the size of landed estates has not in both countries the same effect on the development of agriculture.

—In general the soil and climate of England is better adapted to large farming, the soil and climate of France to small farming. The two nations will, therefore, to all appearances, preserve their present land legislation, but will modify whatever is excessive in it. Entail is now very frequently attacked in England, on account of its driving capital away from agriculture. It has already received many severe blows and will probably receive still more. The right of primogeniture itself begins to be called in question, at least in its most absolute formulation. In France, on the other hand, the legislation which now favors excessive division of land into small parcels will have to be modified, sooner or later.

—Public authority has frequently interfered by other measures in agricultural matters, with good intentions, no doubt, but with the most disastrous results.
Edition: current; Page: [40]
Governments naturally anxious that the people should have the means of subsistence, believed they were providing them, by prescribing or prohibiting certain kinds of farming, by regulating the distribution of crops, by fixing the price of wheat, etc. Such regulations as these were in special favor under the ancient régime in France. Royal edicts prohibited the setting out of grape vines, without permission; decisions of parliament prohibited potato planting under heavy penalties. In one place artificial prairies were forbidden; in another, men were punished even for cutting wheat with the scythe. It took a long time for people to understand that agriculture was hindered by this action and that it was vastly better to leave it to regulate itself. It is best that agriculturists should ask for the intervention of government in their affairs as seldom as possible. The best political institutions are those which leave them the broadest liberty. The least centralized governments are the best, even in cases which absolutely demand the interference of public authority. If the nations of Europe be examined, it will be seen that agriculture prospers most under the governments which are least centralized. Political liberty is good for every class: it is a safeguard for the interests of agriculture, as well as every other occupation. It not only prevents arbitrary and ill-judged measures, but it develops self-reliant habits; it stimulates the spirit of enterprise and manly resolution. Governments sometimes imagine that they help agriculture by what they call prizes, etc. It would be unjust to deny altogether the utility of public competition, by prizes, marks of distinction, etc., but too much importance should not be attached to these things. As a general rule, the agriculture which needs encouragement is not in an enviable condition. Its real encouragement should be in the sale its products meet with. All great industries have grown up of themselves without artificial stimulation, by the sole influence of the market.

—Agricultural societies, and, still better, agricultural journals, are among the best agents for disseminating information useful to agriculture. Free discussion, no matter what the question be, is the best servant of truth. Interference by authority does more harm than good, at least in the great majority of cases. It is all important to accustom agriculturists as far as possible to attend to everything themselves, and to assume the initiative in everything that may be useful to them. The author of this article, in a book on the rural economy of England, has endeavored to point out the influence of free institutions on the development of agriculture. He has endeavored to show why country life is more sought after in England than in France: "The richest landholder of a county in England is generally the lord lieutenant, more an honorary than a profitable title, but one which reflects on its possessor the eclat of English royalty. The richest men after the lord lieutenants are the justices of the peace, that is the first and almost the only administrative and judicial magistrates. In France officials are almost all strangers in the departments which they administer, connected with local interests by no tie. In England the proprietors themselves are officials in their districts, and though the crown formally appoints them, they are officials by the sole fact of their being landed proprietors. There is perhaps not an example of a commission of justice of the peace having been refused to a rich and respected landholder. In France when a landholder wishes to play an important part he must leave his land; in England, he must remain there."

—Every nation has a character of its own. It would be folly to dream of having the same institutions and the same manners in France, for instance, as in England, but without changing in anything the basis of French national organization, such as it has been formed by all French history, the French may seek to resemble their neighbors in those points which have contributed most to their prosperity. If political institutions and habits have an influence on agricultural wealth, agricultural wealth in its turn has an influence on political life. Wherever agriculture prospers, a general feeling of peace and stability reigns in the social body; ambition is less violent, passion less inflammable, revolution less frequent. Here again we may cite the example of England. If England is the nation of Europe which for two centuries has had the fewest revolutions, much here must be ascribed to the influence of the agricultural class. Commerce and industry, whose prodigious development forms the chief wealth of that country, occupy but a secondary place in public esteem. Every one there understands that when agriculture suffers, all things suffer. Agriculture, in turn, recognizes that the progress of trade and manufactures is necessary to its own prosperity.

—What nations seek above all is power, and population makes power. Two hundred years ago the population of England was about one-fourth the population of France; a century ago it was one-half; to-day it is almost as great. For some years past it has become so dense that the soil does not suffice to support the inhabitants; but up to the middle of this century English agriculture was able to satisfy the increasing demands of consumption. And even to-day the population of England increases so rapidly that the importation of provisions does not keep pace with it.

—Let us see what took place simultaneously in France, toward the end of the reign of Louis XIV. Instead of increasing, the population had diminished by one-fourth, and the provinces supported the survivors with difficulty. One of the most terrible proofs of this general abandonment of farming in France is the royal edict of Oct. 13, 1693, worded as follows: "The king having been informed that many persons and laboring men, little knowing that the high price of grain arises solely from the tricks of merchants and others engaged in commerce, who have hoarded these products in order to increase their price, through fear of a want of
Edition: current; Page: [41]
food for their families during the year, intend to leave their lands untilled, his majesty enjoins upon all laborers, farmers and other persons obtaining profit from their lands through the labor of their hands, to cultivate those lands which according to the custom of the country ought to be cultivated and to do it at the proper time, according to the nature of the grain and the custom of the place; if they fail to do this, his majesty permits all persons to seed these places, by the doing of which they shall be entitled to all the fruits thereof, and not be held to give any part to the proprietors or the tenants or pay any rent." What a fearful light is thrown on the general situation of the country by a document like this! We can readily understand how France, reduced to this point of depopulation and lifelessness, fell into the state of stagnation in which she languished for three-fourths of the 18th century, and how she was able neither to defend her colonies nor continue the unfortunate seven years war. If France were as thickly settled as Belgium, she would have 75,000,000 inhabitants. We can easily see that with such a population she would have more weight in European affairs. What is true of men is none the less true of capital. Whatever be the productiveness of trade and industry, agriculture is more productive still, in this sense, that it furnishes the raw materials for all the other branches of national labor. A nation merely commercial and industrial would have no foundation; its wealth would be precarious and uncertain. On the contrary, a people with a great agricultural development furnishes immense support to commerce and industry, and by the combination of the three sources of production, may reach the highest point of wealth and power.5 Capital invested in the soil is the solid basis of all other capital. This is abundantly shown, even in France, by the richest departments, such as the department of the Nord or lower Seine. The most successful war consequently does not increase a nation's power as much as a few years of peace and agricultural labor.

L. DE LAVERGNE.

ALABAMA

ALABAMA, a state of the American union, formed mainly from territory ceded to the United States by Georgia, the strip of land on the northern border having been ceded by South Carolina, and the southwestern corner by Spain, (see MISSISSIPPI; ANNEXATIONS, II.) It was separated from Mississippi territory, as Alabama territory, by act of March 3, 1817, St. Stephens being the temporary capital; an enabling act was passed March 2, 1819; a state constitution was formed at Huntsville, August 2, 1819, and the state was admitted by joint resolution, Dec. 14, 1819. Its boundaries, as prescribed by the enabling act, were as follows: Beginning at the point where the 31st degree of north latitude intersects the Perdido river; thence, east, to the western boundary line of the state of Georgia; thence, along said line, to the southern boundary line of the state of Tennessee; thence, west, along said boundary line, to the Tennessee river; thence, up the same, to the mouth of Bear creek; thence, by a direct line, to the northwest corner of Washington county; thence, due south, to the Gulf of Mexico; thence, eastwardly, including all islands within six leagues of the shore, to the Perdido river; and thence, up the same, to the beginning.

—The original constitution, closely following that of Mississippi, formed a free and independent state, with its capital at Catawba (changed in 1826 to Tuscaloosa, and in 1846-7 to Montgomery, its present location); the governor was to hold office for two years; and the legislature was forbidden to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without consent of the owners, to prohibit immigrants from bringing slaves with them, or to deprive slaves of trial by jury for offenses above the grade of petit larceny; but power was given to prohibit the importation of slaves as merchandise.

—Prior to the rebellion the political history of the state was uneventful. Its electoral vote was always cast for the democratic candidates, and all its governors were democrats. During the years 1838-46 a whig opposition was formed, and in 1856 the american, or know nothing, party nominated candidates for state offices. In all other state elections the struggle was rather personal than political, the opposing candidates being of the same party. The state government took part with Georgia against the federal government in the Cherokee case until the removal of the Indians beyond the Mississippi in 1836-7. The only other local political feeling was caused by an unsuccessful effort, 1838-45, to repudiate the debt assumed by the state through its guarantee of various state banks.

—Feb. 24, 1860, the legislature by resolution instructed the governor to call a state convention "in the event of the election of a black republican to the presidency." The convention met Jan. 7, 1861, at Montgomery, and, Jan. 11, passed the following ordinance of secession: "1. That the state of Alabama now withdraws, and is hereby withdrawn, from the union known as 'The United States of America,' and henceforth ceases to be one of said United States, and is, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and independent state. 2. That all the powers over the territory of said state, and of the people thereof, heretofore delegated to the government of the United States of America, be and they are hereby withdrawn from said government, and are hereby resumed and vested in the people of Alabama."

—Feb. 4, the provisional congress of the confederate states met in Montgomery, Alabama being represented and so remaining until the close of the rebellion.

—The ordinance of
Edition: current; Page: [42]
secession was bitterly opposed in northern Alabama, and its passage was at once followed by arrangements, as in West Virginia, for the formation of a new state with its capital at Huntsville. The name was to have been The state of Nickajack, from a former Indian town: but an irruption of confederate troops soon stamped out the inchoate state.

—At the close of the rebellion, Lewis E. Parsons, the provisional governor, (see RECONSTRUCTION), called a state convention for Sept. 12, 1865, which adopted a new constitution prohibiting slavery, and by ordinance declared null and void the ordinance of secession and all other unconstitutional ordinances of the convention of 1861. A governor and legislature were chosen, and in December, 1865, the state government was in operation again until superseded by the act of March 2, 1867. The state then passed under military rule. Nov. 5, 1867, a state convention framed a new constitution. In its first article universal suffrage was established, slavery was abolished, and the state renounced all claim to any right of secession and acknowledged paramount allegiance to be due to the United States This constitution was ratified in February, 1868, as congress afterward decided, and the state was re-admitted to the union by ratifying the 14th amendment, July 11, 1868, as announced by the president's proclamation of July 20. A new constitution was ratified by popular vote, Nov. 16, 1875. It attempted no change in the points above referred to, except in the use of the new phrase that "the people of this state accept as final the established fact that from the federal union there can be no secession of any State," but it took away the permission given in the previous constitution to sue the State in its own courts—The name of Alabama is taken from that of its principal river, popularly supposed to mean Here we rest; and these words are placed as a motto upon the coat of arms of the State. But the name really has no known meaning, and was first given to the river by the French, in the form "Alibamon," from the name of a Muscogee tribe living on its banks.

ALABAMA CLAIMS

ALABAMA CLAIMS (IN U. S. HISTORY). April 16, 1856, the representatives of Great Britain, Austria, France, Russia, Prussia and Turkey, assembled in congress at Paris, adopted the following declaration, to which nearly all other civilized nations afterwards acceded: 1st. Privateering is and remains abolished. 2nd. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. 3rd. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag. 4th. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, maintained by forces sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the country. To this Declaration of Paris the United States refused to accede, being unwilling, by abolishing privateering, while other nations maintained enormous fleets, to accept the necessity of keeping up a large fleet in self-defense, but the President offered, July 29, 1856, to go further and adopt an additional article which should entirely exempt private property, even of citizens of belligerents, from capture on the sea, either by privateers or national vessels. Great Britain refused to agree to this, and the negotiation failed. The United States was therefore, in 1861, the only commercial nation not committed to the abolition of privateering.

—The fall of Fort Sumter, in April, 1861, (see REBELLION), was followed by a series of retaliatory measures, to which the use of the telegraph gave an extraordinary swiftness of succession. On the 15th of that month the President, by proclamation, announced the existence of the rebellion, and called for volunteers to suppress it; on the 17th Jefferson Davis offered letters of marque and reprisal, against the commerce of the United States, to private armed vessels, and privateers at once began to issue from southern ports; and on the 19th, by proclamation, the President declared a partial blockade of the southern ports, which was made general on the 27th. On the 24th Secretary Seward applied to the powers which had made the Declaration of Paris for permission to accede to it without qualification. To this Great Britain, acting in unison with France, consented, on condition that the engagement should not "have any bearing, direct or indirect, on the internal differences now prevailing in the United States." As this seemed to imply that the de facto government of the southern confederacy should still be allowed to keep privateers afloat, the United States declined to accept it and allowed this negotiation to drop, with the following concluding monition, May 21: "Great Britain has but to wait a few months, and all her present inconveniences will cease with all our own troubles. If she take a different course she will calculate for herself the ultimate as well as the immediate consequences." In the meantime the Queen's proclamation
Edition: current; Page: [43]
of May 13 had announced her neutrality between the United States and the confederate states, had forbidden her citizens to take part with either, and had ordered her official servants to accord belligerent rights to both. This included the refusal of warlike equipments to the vessels of both parties, the preservation of the peace between their vessels in British harbors, and the detention of a war vessel of either for twenty-four hours after a hostile vessel had left the port. Under this proclamation the position of Great Britain was difficult at the best, because of the great number and extent of her colonies in every part of the world, for whose action she was responsible; but the active, notorious and undisguised sympathy of many of her colonial officers and citizens for the rebellion and its cruisers contributed very largely to the difficulties of the home government and to the subsequent American demands upon it for damages. While the rule prohibiting the obtaining, in British harbors, of warlike equipments, and particularly of coal except within certain limits, was stringently enforced against federal vessels, confederate privateers generally found little difficulty in evading them by the connivance of colonial officials; and several colonial harbors, particularly that of Nassau, became depots of supplies for this species of vessel, to which they resorted to prepare for new voyages of destruction. However impartial the treatment of belligerent vessels may have been in the ports of Great Britain, in the ports of British colonies United States war vessels found a neutrality so rigorous in its exactions as to be, in contrast with the open or hidden privileges accorded to rebel cruisers, fully tantamount to unfriendliness. They were frequently denied the privilege of taking coal on board which had been left on deposit in British harbors by the United States government, while rebel privateers, though without a port of their own, found no great difficulty in obtaining in British harbors the same "article of warlike equipment," without which they could not have kept the sea a single month. On these grounds the American minister to Great Britain, C. F. Adams, repeatedly warned the British government that the United States had a fair claim for compensation for the damage done to its commerce; and this was subsequently enlarged by the claim that the queen's proclamation of May 13 was itself issued precipitately and in violation of treaties, and that it gave possibility to rebel depredations which would have been impossible without it. It is but fair to add that the proclamation was defended by the Queen's ministers on the ground that rebel privateers were already upon the sea, and that it was necessary to free British officers who should meet them from the necessity of treating them as pirates.

—The British foreign enlistment act of July 3, 1819, (59 Geo. III., cap. 69), prohibits under penalties, and empowers the government to prevent the equipment of any land or sea forces within the British dominions to operate against the territory or commerce of a friendly nation. In the United States the act of April 20, 1818, which is closely similar in its terms, preceded it, and the two governments are supposed to have acted with a common understanding in the matter. During the Crimean war the United States had fulfilled their obligations promptly and fully by seizing and detaining vessels represented to be destined for the service of Russia; and the claim was now advanced, and finally established, (see GENEVA AWARD), that Great Britain did not correspondingly exercise "due diligence" to fulfill its obligations. The first privateers, during the year 1861, were equipped in southern ports, and gained the open sea by running the blockade. When the most formidable of these, the Sumter, was hopelessly blocked up in Gibraltar by the U. S. steamer Tuscarora, and had to be sold in January, 1862, the confederate agents in Great Britain at once began the construction of armed vessels there, evading the provisions of the enlistment act by fictitious ownership. From Feb. 18, until March 22, 1862, minister Adams represented to the British government that a war vessel, then building by the Messrs. Miller, of Liverpool, the Oreto, (afterward the Florida), though nominally destined for Palermo, in Sicily, was evidently and notoriously intended for war against the United States. As she contained no arms or munitions of war, she was allowed to sail, and proceeded to Green Bay, near Nassau, where she enlisted additional men, and was transformed into a confederate privateer, arms and munitions having been brought from Great Britain in another vessel. The Florida was seized by a British steamer, the Greyhound, at Nassau, but released; and the British government refused to satisfy the demands of the United States that the vessel should be seized as a violator of the enlistment act whenever she should come within British jurisdiction.

—Soon after the departure of the Oreto, or Florida, minister Adams began collecting evidence against another vessel then building by the Messrs. Laird at Birkenhead, near Liverpool, and called, from the number of merchants who had subscribed the expense of her construction, the 290 (afterward the Alabama). June 23, he gave notice to Earl Russell of what he believed to be the real character of the vessel, and solicited "such action as might tend either to stop the projected expedition, or to establish the fact that its purpose was not inimical to the people of the United States." That action was never taken. July 16, the American minister submitted to Earl Russell his evidence, and the opinion of distinguished English counsel, that "the evidence was almost conclusive." A week afterward, July 23, he offered fresh evidence, and a most emphatic opinion of the same counsel, to the following effect: "I have perused the above affidavits, and I am of opinion that the collector of customs would be justified in detaining the vessel. Indeed, I should think it his duty to detain her, and that if, after the application which has been made
Edition: current; Page: [44]
to him, supported by the evidence which has been laid before me, he allows the vessel to leave Liverpool, he will incur a heavy responsibility—a responsibility of which the board of customs, under whose direction he appears to be acting, must take their share. It appears difficult to make out a stronger case of infringement of the foreign enlistment act, which, if not enforced on this occasion, is little better than a dead letter. It well deserves consideration whether, if the vessel be allowed to escape, the federal government would not have serious grounds of remonstrance." The vessel was allowed to escape. The board of customs referred the papers to their counsel; the Queen's advocate, Sir John D. Harding, fell ill; other counsel were called in, who advised the seizure of the vessel; but, before this opinion could be acted upon, the Alabama had sailed, July 29, without register or clearance, to the Terceira, one of the Azores, where she took her equipment from two British vessels and became a confederate war vessel, commissioned "to sink, burn and destroy" the commerce of the United States. No effective pursuit of the vessel was made by Great Britain, and she was hospitably received, without any attempt to arrest her, in several British colonies afterward.

—In April, 1863, the Japan, afterward called the Georgia, left Greenock, and soon after, upon the coast of France, she took an equipment from another steamer and became a confederate cruiser. For over a year she continued her cruise until she was captured off Lisbon, Aug. 15, 1864, by the United States steamer Niagara, after a transfer to a Liverpool merchant.

—In September, 1864, the steamer Sea King, owned by a Liverpool merchant, cleared at London for India. At Madeira she met another vessel, the Laurel, of Liverpool, from which she received her armament and men, and she then became the confederate war vessel Shenandoah. During her career as a cruiser, before her surrender to the British government, Nov. 6, 1865, the Shenandoah took in supplies and enlisted men at Melbourne, Australia, with the connivance, as the American consul asserted, of the British authorities at that port.

—Besides the devastation wrought by the rebel cruisers, the United States considered the toleration by Great Britain of confederate administrative bureaux on British soil, by means of which alone offensive operations against American commerce were possible, as ground of reclamation. The action of the British government in maintaining an official union with France upon questions growing out of the rebellion, was also considered unfriendly to the United States in the absence of any recognition of the confederate states as an independent nation. The whole mass of grievances of which the United States expected satisfaction from Great Britain, and to which the name "Alabama Claims" was commonly given, may best be summed up in the words of the American members of the joint high commission: "Extensive direct losses in the capture and destruction of a large number of vessels, with their cargoes, and in the heavy national expenditures in the pursuit of the cruisers; and indirect injury in the transfer of a large part of the American commercial marine to the British flag, in the enhanced payment of insurance, in the prolongation of the war, and in the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion."

—When it first became apparent that the neutrality of Great Britain would be a source of danger to the United States, minister Adams was very active in pressing each fresh violation of neutrality upon the attention of the British government, not, as he explained to his own government, with any hope of obtaining more stringent laws, or greater diligence in the execution of existing laws, but with the intention of "making a record" to which the United States could thereafter appeal. The American ill-feeling toward Great Britain, which was developed by her haste to accord belligerent rights to the confederacy, had grown upon every new grievance until, when the rebellion was at last suppressed, it had settled into a dangerous disposition to leave the matter unsettled for the purpose of applying the British system of neutrality to British commerce in the event of any future war or rebellion against Great Britain. The American government, however, did not share this disposition. It continued to press its claim for compensation in the higher tone which was justified by its altered circumstances, but at the same time, Jan. 12, 1866, offered to submit "the whole controversy" to arbitration. The British government offered to accept an arbitration limited to the depredations of the Alabama and similar vessels, but this was declined by the United States for the reason that it involved a waiver of the position, which they had always held, that the Queen's proclamation of 1861, which accorded belligerent rights to insurgents against the authority of the United States, was not justified on any grounds, either of necessity or of moral right, and therefore was an act of wrongful intervention, a departure from the obligations of existing treaties, and without the sanction of the law of nations.

—Jan. 14, 1869, Reverdy Johnson, American minister to Great Britain, arranged a treaty which, without mentioning the Alabama claims in particular, provided for the submission to arbitration of "all claims" of either country against the other since Feb. 8, 1853 In the senate this treaty had but a single vote in its favor, and was not ratified. Negotiations on this subject then practically came to a stand until Jan. 26, 1871, when the British government proposed the appointment of a joint commission to sit at Washington and arrange the terms of a treaty to cover the disputes as to the Canadian fisheries and other questions at issue between the United States and Canada. The proposition was accepted on condition that the treaty should also make some disposition of the Alabama claims. To this condition Great Britain agreed, and five
Edition: current; Page: [45]
high commissioners from each country met in joint session at Washington, Feb. 27, 1871. After thirty-four meetings, the commission agreed upon the terms of the Treaty of Washington, which was signed by the commissioners May 8, ratified by the senate, by a vote of 50 to 12, May 24; ratified by Great Britain, June 17, and proclaimed in force July 4, 1871, by president Grant. It provided for arbitration (1) as to the Alabama claims, (2) as to claims of British subjects against the United States, (3) as to the fisheries, and (4) as to the northwest boundary of the United States. The arbitrators upon the Alabama claims were to be five in number, appointed by the president of the United States, her Britannic majesty, the king of Italy, the president of the Swiss confederation, and the emperor of Brazil; and were to hold their sessions at Geneva, Switzerland. (For the constitution and award of the tribunal of arbitration, and the provisions of the treaty governing its deliberations, see GENEVA AWARD)

—See The Case of the United States to be laid before the Tribunal of Arbitration to be convened at Geneva, London, 1872; Case presented on the part of Her Britannic Majesty to the Tribunal of Arbitration, London, 1872; Official Correspondence on the Claims in respect to the Alabama, London, 1867; Bluntschli, Opinion impartiale sur la question de la Alabama, Berlin, 1870; Geffcken, Die Alabamafrage, Stuttgart, 1872; Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (with messages) 1861-71; Cushing's Treaty of Washington. The act of April 20, 1818, is in 3 Stat. at Large, 448. The treaty is in Stat. at Large.

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

ALASKA

ALASKA, an unorganized territory of the United States. (See ANNEXATIONS, VI.; TERRITORIES.)

—See Whymper, Travels and Adventures in the Territory of Alaska, Boston, 1870; Dall, Alaska and its Resources, Boston, 1870.

ALBANY PLAN OF UNION

ALBANY PLAN OF UNION (IN U. S. HISTORY). The lords of trade, in 1754, directed that commissioners from the several provinces should assemble at Albany, N. Y., to arrange a treaty with the Six Nations. June 19, 1754, commissioners from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland met, and, after concluding their business with the Indians, proceeded to consider a plan of colonial union, proposed by Franklin, one of their number, which was adopted, July 10-11. It comprised the appointment by the crown of a president general for all the colonies, with the veto power; the election by the colonial assemblies of a grand council, who, with the assent of the president general, should make Indian treaties, regulate Indian trade, purchase and dispose of Indian lands, raise and equip armies and navies for colonial defense, and lay taxes to support them. Members of the grand council were to serve three years, and to be chosen in proportion to the amount paid by the colony to the general treasury; but no colony was to have more than seven members, or less than two. Laws were to be valid unless disapproved by the king in council within three years.

—It was agreed that this plan, in order to prevent a possible secession by any colony, should be made binding by act of parliament. The whole plan was disapproved by the crown, on the ground that it gave too much power to the colonies, and by the colonies that it gave too much power to the crown. (See REVOLUTION, UNITED STATES.)

—See 4 Franklin's Life and Writings, 22-68 (containing the plan in full, and the Letters to Shirley); 2 Trumbull's History of Connecticut, 355; 3 Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, 23; 1 Pitkin's United States, 142; 2 Hildreth's United States, 443.

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

ALBANY REGENCY

ALBANY REGENCY, The (IN U. S. HISTORY), the name given to the politicians who, from 1820 until about 1854-5, unofficially managed the machinery of the democratic party in New York. It would be difficult to give an exhaustive list of those who, at various times, were recognized members of "the Regency"; but a partial list would include Martin Van Buren, who graduated from it upon his election to the United States senate in 1821, but still remained in close alliance with it: William L. Marcy, who graduated to the senate in the same manner in 1831; Silas Wright, until his election to the senate in 1833; John A. Dix, until his election to the senate in 1845; Edwin Croswell, editor of the "Albany Argus," and State printer; Benj. F. Butler, who was Attorney General under Van Buren, (see ADMINISTRATIONS): Azariah C. Flagg, secretary of state and afterwards comptroller of the state; Benjamin Knower, treasurer of the state; Roger Skinner; Dean Richmond; Peter Cagger; and Samuel A. Talcott. Although, as has been said, several of these "graduated," the graduates were expected, whenever necessary for the success of the party and the regency, to return to the field of state politics. Thus Van Buren in 1828, Marcy in 1832, and Wright in 1844, returned from the senate to accept a nomination for the governorship at the hands of the regency.

—About 1819-20, when the system of nominating conventions began to be used, the regency began to be recognized as a political factor, and as the business of nominations was further abandoned to these smaller and irresponsible bodies the regency obtained progressively a stronger control over the conventions and thus over the action of the party. This control was not necessarily obtained by corrupt means. Those delegates to the conventions who were ambitious of office were controlled by the knowledge that the regency never forgot or forgave insubordination or rebellion, and never forgot or abandoned a friend who had suffered in its service; the great mass of delegates were controlled by the conspicuous success which usually followed a deference to the discreet and experienced politicians who composed the regency. In this way, and, in emergencies, by a judicious use of the State printing
Edition: current; Page: [46]
and other contracts, the Albany regency (so called from the fact that its members lived at the capital of the state) continued to reward its friends, punish its enemies, control the party, and keep New York generally democratic, until its opponents in great measure accepted its machinery and overthrew it by its own methods. This last result, however, was much assisted by the split in the New York democratic party in 1848 (see NEW YORK, BARNBURNERS, FREE SOIL PARTY) and subsequent years, and when this division had lasted long enough to deprive the regency of the state patronage its most efficient weapon was gone, and its former power departed. (See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY).

—See 2 Hammond's Political History of New York, 157, 429; Hammond's Life of Silas Wright; 2 von Holst's United States, 21; Mackenzie's Lives of Butler and Hoyt; Mackenzie's Life of Van Buren, 29, 168; Sedgwick's Political Writings of Leggett.

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

ALCALDE

ALCALDE, the Spanish equivalent of the French Maire, the German Bürgermeister and Schulze, the Italian Podesta, the English Mayor. The powers of this office were much more extensive formerly than now, for they united judicial with administrative functions. The history of alcaldes may be found in the excellent work of Don Manuel Colmeiro, entitled Direcho Administrativo EspaÑol, Madrid and Santiago, 1850, 2 vols. 8vo.

M. B.

ALCOHOL

ALCOHOL, Tax on. (See DISTILLED SPIRITS.)

ALGERIA

ALGERIA. Since its assimilation with France declared by the decree of Oct. 24, 1870, Algeria should be described as a part of France situated in the north of Africa, and forming the three departments of Oran, Algiers and Constantine.

—GEOGRAPHY. Algeria is the central part of the geographical region which comprises, together with Algeria itself, Morocco on the west and Tunis on the east. It extends from parallel 33° to 37° north latitude, and lies between longitude 6° cast and 5° west, reckoning from the meridian of Paris. The meridian of Paris cuts it into two almost equal parts, in the centre of which is Algiers on the north coast of Africa, at 0° 44' of east longitude.

—The mountainous region of the Atlas has been called "the isle of the Occident" by Arab geographers. It is a sort of island bounded on the north and west by the ocean; on the north and east by the Mediterranean; on the south by the Sahara, which seems to be the bed of a dried-up sea, extending from Cape Noun and Bajador to the Gulf of Gabès. It forms a distinct geographical system, devoid of apparent connection with other regions of Africa. The desert separates it from Africa, and the sea connects it with Europe. It is, properly speaking, a minor Africa or a European Africa. Its climate and flora remind one of southern Europe, Andalusia, Sicily and Provence. The chain of the Atlas rising in the west, opposite the Canary islands which belong to its system, stretches northward to Fex, and enters the provinces of Tafilelt and Morocco, where it is 4,000 metres in height, and covered with perpetual snow. Thence it bends to the east; running parallel with the Mediterranean coast to the mountains of Fossato on the confines of Tunis. It stops at the heights of Gabès, where the sandy region commences.

—Two great chains of mountains are to be distinguished in this region, that of the Sahara and the Central chain, and a third range which reaches to the sea. Only one group of the Sahara chain sends its waters to the sea, that of Djebel-Amour on whose northern slope the Shelliff, the largest river of Algiers, has its origin. The Central chain pours its waters, on the south, into the sands where they are lost, and into the basins where they evaporate in summer. On the north its waters enter the sea.

—Algeria has three natural divisions. 1st. The Tell on the north, which is arable. It embraces all the Mediterranean slope between the sea and the Central chain, and in addition certain tracts of the Sahara slope of this chain, such as the country of Batna, Medjana and Hodna, in the province of Constantine. On the east the Tell extends further inland than in the other provinces. The tell contains about 14,000,000 hectares. 2nd. That south of the Central chain, the region of lofty table-lands and the Chotts, a country of steppes and flats only fit for pastoral life. 3rd. The Sahara which properly speaking only begins south of the Sahara range. On both slopes pasture lands are found during the rainy season. Further on, a forest of date palms may be seen, from time to time, as a green island in a sea of sand. These oases situated on the flats are nourished by rivers which are almost always under ground, and whose waters, brought to the surface through ordinary or artesian wells, render possible the culture of the palm and a certain number of vegetables. In the mountains large hamlets, called ksours, serve as dwelling places for a settled population, as well as markets and granaries for the pastoral tribes of the country about.

—The climate of the Tell is that of warm temperate regions; it calls to mind southern Europe. On the sea-coast and on the plains, there is no winter, simply a rainy season. The hottest part of the Tell is in the plains of thè west and the valley of the lower Shelliff. In the Tell there is winter only in the mountains, and the interior towns usually situated at high altitudes. Sétif is 1,085 metres above the sea; Médéah, 940; Milianah, 900; Aumale, 850; Tlemcen, 800; Constantine, 650; Mascara, 600. In these towns the summer is hot, and the cold comparatively severe in the winter. Snows prevent terraced roofs. The rainy season commences everywhere in October, at the earliest, and ends completely at the close of April. The yearly average rainfall increases toward the east from Oran to Algiers, Constantine and Tunis. The proportion is approximately 3, 4, 5, 6.

—South of Tell the heat is great in summer, but the winter is cold on the
Edition: current; Page: [47]
elevated plateaux. The nights in summer too are cold. In the oases as well as on the flats there is no winter perceptible to the European, and the nights are hot.

—All the agricultural products of France thrive, and all French fruit trees yield well in Algiers. Winter wheat is the indigenous variety. Sicilian flax is cultivated for its seed. The alfa, a kind of grass which Spain alone exported at one time, and of which cords and mats are made, and in England paper, is exported in large quantities from Oran. The climate has allowed the naturalization in Algeria of the banana and cotton. The hénna of the south and Mostaganem is sent to the dye works of France. In the torrid basin of the lower Shelliff and the west certain modes of tropical culture are possible, provided irrigation be practiced. When the damming of the Habra is finished, the greatest work of its kind in the world (30,000,000 cubic metres) it is proposed to utilize its water for the cultivation of the sugar cane.

—In addition to the domestic animals of France, we find in Algeria the dromedary used for transporting burdens, for food, for clothing and furniture of the natives. The southern steppes afford pasture to countless flocks of sheep; many of these are sent to France and Spain, and their wool supplies the factory of Roubaix. Algeria is very rich in marbles and minerals. Between Oran and Tlemcen, the mine of transparent onyx so celebrated in antiquity has been rediscovered and is worked. The white marbles of Filfila are of the highest quality. The lack of coal prevents the smelting of iron ore, but it abounds to such a degree that the ore of Souma is sent abroad from Algiers, and at Bona a thousand tons of the magnetic iron of Moktar-el-Adid are shipped each day. At Gar-Rouban, near Morocco, a mine of lead with veins of silver ore, is worked. Zinc can be had in the district of Bona, and there are many beds of copper ore.

—ETHNOLOGY. Berbers or Kabyles. Among all the races inhabiting northern Africa, at the present time, the Berbers have been longest in the land. All the conquerors of Africa, Carthaginians, Romans, Vandals, Arabs, Turks and French, have had to struggle with them. The Arab conquest forced them into the mountains where they still remain. Converted to Islamism, at a later period they took a prominent part in the different invasions of Spain by the Mussulmans. To them is attributed the high state of agriculture in Mussulman Spain. Their language belongs to the Semitic type, but differs more from the Arabic than the Hebrew and Syriac. An experienced eye never mistakes a Kabyle for an Arab of pure blood. The Kabyles and Arabs differ in everything,—in language, in physical type, in aptitudes in manners, and institutions. They have nothing in common but religion. In contrast, however, with the Arab the Kabyle is little inclined to religion.

—In the mountains where the population is dense, land is scarce, and living difficult. The laboring Kabyle is rather a gardener and an artisan than an agriculturist. He prepares oil and figs for export, makes powder, arms, tools and household implements, soap, cloth, trinkets and earthenware. He peddles these articles in the Arab districts, and gets in exchange for them cereals which his own mountains do not produce in sufficient quantity. He goes to the villages and plains, to work for the Arab agriculturist, or the European manufacturer. He lives in a house and not under a tent or a gourbis like the Arab, who is always a half nomad. The Kabyle villages built on the crests of hills are little fortresses. The women are not veiled, and when guests are entertained they are not sent away. The land belongs to the family, not to the tribe.

—Each Kabyle tribe is a little democratic republic, with an assembly, djemmáa, composed of all men able to bear arms. The djemmáa makes the laws, decides cases, regulates the administration, elects a chief amin, who is charged with carrying out its decisions; it concludes alliances between tribes, and decides on peace and war. The Kabyle tribes arrange themselves in confederations like the ancient leagues of the Grisons. Personal rivalries almost always separate them into two parties called sofs. Each one of these allies itself to the sofs of the neighboring tribes.

—Hospitality is regulated by law, and is exercised in turns; it is not considered as a religious but a public duty. The Kabyles have an institution of international or rather inter-tribal law peculiar to themselves, the anaya. It consists in the protection afforded an individual either by a private person or by a tribe. A stranger, and even an enemy, who has obtained the anaya, is held inviolable, under pain of death. War breaks out between tribes frequently because the anaya has not been respected. Peace is concluded between tribes by the exchange of pledges, the withdrawal or giving up of which is a declaration of war.

—The authority of France is exercised in Kabylia only in the following manner: it reserves to itself the exercise of the police power, criminal and correctional matters; it confirms the amin elected by the tribe, has agents called amin-el-oumena, who act for it as intermediaries with the amins of the several villages; it collects a poll tax in accordance with a list of names drawn up by the djemmáa. In this list the Kabyles are ranged in four categories, according to their fortunes. Of these the last is exempt from taxation; in the other three the tax varies, but is the same for all members of the same class. It was sought to introduce the office of cadi in civil cases, but the Kabyles wished to judge themselves by their own laws in general assemblies. They admit neither cadis nor the authority of the law of Islam. Justice is, in their eyes, a social question to be regulated by men, and a matter of religion decided in a sovereign manner by the Koran. These institutions are preserved intact only in Great Kabylia.

—In Algeria the Berbers are called Kabyles, which, in their language, means confederates. In Aurès alone they are called Chaouia. The population of the oases
Edition: current; Page: [48]
and the ksours of the Sahara is mainly of Berber origin, and has preserved in part the communal institutions of the Kabyles. The Touaregs in the depths of the Sahara and half way to Soudan are of the pure Berber race.

—Arabs. The Arab tribes lead a pastoral life in the south, and are agriculturists in the Tell. There are some who change their habitations and mode of life according to the season of the year. Each tribe forms a kind of little nation with its territory, chiefs and history. The tribe is scarcely more than one family grown to the maximum of extension which in Mohammedan countries is great.

—The Mussulman family has more affinities than the Christian. By polygamy, by adoption, through foster parents more numerous ties are formed than with us, and even divorce does not break them up completely, if children have been born of the marriage. Moreover the parents are not separated by material interests, for their landed property remains undivided (land melk), and they live together on the family estate. The life of relations in common and innumerable alliances determine the formation of a natural group, the tribe, which is almost entirely made up of relatives or allies. The fractions of the tribe are called, according to their importance, Ferka, Khoms or Douar. The chiefs of families or of tents, are the representatives of the tribe, and they make up its djemmáa which is its national assembly. If there is a family more ancient or more powerful than the rest, it is the natural head of the tribe.

—The Arab tribal government is, therefore, patriarchal and aristocratic. In Arab countries there are three kinds of nobility, the chorfa, nobles by origin through descent from the daughter or uncle of the prophet; the djouad or military nobility; the marabouts, descendants of the saints of Islam. In certain tribes all the men lay claim to nobility, others are composed of marabouts alone.

—The noble is not jealous, and his authority is not called in question. He is the honor of his tribe. This social organization gives a common interest to the tribe, and causes its members to render mutual assistance in time of need and against the stranger. Such was the Arab tribe before conquest changed its character.

—The conqueror, Turk or Frenchman, has been frequently obliged, in the interests of his own power, to deprive the natural chief of authority and confer it on an inferior and sometimes a stranger. This chief has become a functionary in the service of France, charged with subjecting the tribe to French policy; he is imposed upon it and supported against it by the power of France. He often lacks authority and has tradition against him. If he is guilty of exactions the tribe must endure them, or go to war with France. Complaints against a chief whom they can not depose are regarded as opposition to French dominion, and are generally rejected. In a word, the imposed functionary often takes the place of the natural chief.

—Moreover the prohibition by France of inter-tribal wars and the personal security afforded by the French police have made it unnecessary for the Arab nobility to uphold and protect, for purposes of self-defense, numerous clients who in return used to fight for them.

—The exportation of wheat, which began since the conquest, has resulted in decreasing the reserve stock of cereals Let a bad year come, and the khammès, who tills for the fifth part of the produce, no longer finds open to him the corn pits of his master which in old times were filled with the surplus of fruitful years. This grain has been sold, its value has been already spent, or if the master has hid the grain away in the ground, he is less disposed to lend money to the khammès than he was formerly to furnish wheat at nominal prices. In case of scarcity the khammès dies of hunger, as in 1867.

—The rule of conquerors has deprived the government of its patriarchal character, the security established by the French has relaxed the bonds of mutual interest which united the aristocracy to its clients. The grain trade has interfered with the assistance given by the rich to the poor in time of scarcity. A social and political revolution is going on through the force of circumstances, and independent of the will of man. This revolution will bring about dislocation of the tribe, the destruction of traditional relations between the nobility and their clients, and, consequently, the destruction of aristocratic power.

—Moors. These are Mussulmans who do not belong to any tribe, and who inhabit the cities or their outskirts. They are called hadri or citizens. A few of them are descendants of the Moors expelled from Spain, and the majority are Arabs or sons of Arabs who have left their tribes in order to become citizens. A few are landed proprietors. The chief means of subsistence for the others is commerce, principally the manufacture of articles used by the tribes—shoes, saddles, implements, etc. In Tlemcen and Constantine whole streets are lined with the shops of Mussulman artisans.

—The Moorish population is in a state of decadence. Living has become more expensive, and provisions and rents have risen enormously since the conquest. Processes of labor have not improved among them. The native consumers of the outlying districts have been replaced by Europeans. For the artisan of the towns the temptations to expense are greater than formerly. The result is that families once rich, but destitute of foresight, sold their farms, (haouch), then their country houses, later their houses in town, and at last pawned the pearls and jewelry of the women, in Algiers at the pawnbrokers, and elsewhere to Jews. These pledges are rarely redeemed. The Moorish population is sinking little by little and will never rise again. At Constantine, Tlemcen and other towns the artisan holds out yet, but even now, in the case of certain articles used by the natives, he has to struggle against the competition of European factories; perhaps he will be driven from the market in the case of other articles.

—Kouloughlis. These are descendants of the children of Turkish fathers and Arab mothers. They
Edition: current; Page: [49]
are found especially in the towns which were the centres of Turkish domination. They retain the overbearing pride of the conqueror toward a vanquished race. At Tlemcen they are equal in number to the hadri and are always in rivalry with them, which causes difficulties to the French administration.

—The Kouloughlis, like the Turks, follow the Hanefi rite, while the Arabs observe the Maleki. These are two of the four rites equally recognized as orthodox by the Sunnite Mussulmans. These two rites differ by a few legal provisions, concerned particularly about the inheritance of women and the forms of prayer. At Algiers and Constantine each rite has its mosques, its ministers of worship and its cadi—Mozabites or Beni-Mzab, merchants and artisans, temporary emigrants from their oases situated at 1° east long and 33° lat. They are Abadites, partisans of the assassins of Ali, and equally regarded as heretics by the Sunnites and Chilites. Their imans or sovereigns had Tiaret as their capital at the epoch of Mussulman conquest. At present their iman resides at Muscat. They are puritans of great probity, and look down on everything not Mozabite. Laborious, industrious, economical, they make large profits in business. A Mozabite who emigrates is forbidden to take with him his wife, or his children of a tender age, to marry a foreign woman, to visit women of improper life or to neglect the practice of his religion. He is obliged to render an account of his commercial transactions to the federal council. Emigrants in the same village hold meetings for prayer and the censorship of private life. Corporal punishment is inflicted during the meetings. But if a Mozabite has met with reverses in business, and it is shown by the assembly that he was not at fault, his co-religionists make good his losses.

—Native Jews. Their mother tongue is the Arabic, but a certain number have learned French. Among them are found rich merchants, wholesale and retail, who lend money (in Algiers there is no legal maximum of interest). Many of them are shopkeepers, a certain number artisans, factotums of great Arab lords, hawkers, who compete sharply with the Kabyles among the Arab tribes, traveling jewelers, who manufacture on the spot and deliver in jewelry the same weight as the Arabs give them in coin. Active, industrious, economical, and selling at the highest figure, they succeed as a rule. The French conquest has freed them from exactions and humiliations. It is only in the extreme south under the rule of great Arab chiefs, who are sometimes vassals and sometimes enemies of the French, that the Jews are still obliged to remove their shoes in passing before a mosque, not to ride on horseback, and to give bonds whenever they absent themselves. A decree issued Oct. 24, 1870, by the assembly at Tours, granted to natives the rights of French citizens. They are now electors and jurors.

—Negroes. Brought from the Soudan as slaves. The trade in negroes, by way of the Sahara, was continued for a long time after its prohibition by the republic in 1848. They are not numerous, and tend to disappear, either by extinction or by mingling with other races. Some of them are like Arabs of dark complexion.

—Europeans. The Spaniards are settled mostly in the provinces of the west and centre, the Italians and Maltese in the east and centre. The French are most numerous in the province of Algiers. The census of 1866 gives a total of 2,912,630 inhabitants classified as follows. Mussulmans, 2,652,072; Native Jews, 33,952; Europeans, 226,000. Official statistics do not distinguish the Kabyles from the Arabs.

—The European population, in which the army is not included, is made up of two elements: the inmates of the hospitals, lyceums, schools, orphan asylums, seminaries, convents and prisons, 8,616; the fixed population, 217,990. The figures for each nationality have been determined only in the case of the fixed population. They are reckoned as follows: 122,119 French; 58,510 Spaniards; 16,655 Italians; 10,627 Anglo-Maltese; 5,436 Germans; 4,643 of other nationalities. Since the census of 1866, the famine which desolated the Mussulman territory in 1867-8 carried off perhaps 500,000 Mussulmans. Certain tribes have been almost destroyed and certain regions depopulated. In the same period the drought which prevailed in Spain, and later the exportation of alfa, brought into the west a great number of Spaniards.

—HISTORY. This is conjectural up to the foundation of Carthage, 850 B. C. This city became mistress of northern Africa, which furnished its mercenary armies with their famous Numidian cavalry. In 250 B. C. the Romans began to struggle with the Carthaginians for northern Africa. In 146 they destroyed Carthage. In 646 A. D. the Arabs showed themselves in Tunis for the first time. The Goths were the masters of Tingitane. In 670, the fiftieth year of the Hegira, Okba founded in the southeast of Tunis, Kairouan, the Mussulman metropolis of the province of Africa.

—After the fall of the Almohades, northern Africa was in a state of political decomposition, when two corsairs, the brothers, Baba-Aroudj and Kheir-ed-Din, established Turkish dominion by taking Djidjelli from the Genoese (1504), Shershell and Algiers from the Arabs (1515) and the rocks in front of Algiers from the Spaniards in 1530. By connecting these rocks with each other and with the land by a dike, Kheir-ed-Din created the port of Algiers. The successors of the two corsairs completed the conquest of Algiers.

—The Turkish government, in Algiers, was a piracy on sea against Christians and on land against Arabs. Its instruments were: 1st. Janissaries recruited in Turkey; 2nd. Kouloughlis, descendants of Turkish fathers and Arab mothers; 3rd. Arab tribes known under the generic name of Maghzem, and who were settled from east to west along the strategic line north of the Central chain of mountains. These tribes, exempt from tribute and occupying their own land granted by the Turks, were bound to lend physical aid in collecting taxes, and against such tribes as might rebel. They also had their share
Edition: current; Page: [50]
of the spoils. In general the Turks left the Arabs to their own devices, provided only that they paid tribute and yielded to the exactions of the conquerors. The Kabyles, protected by their mountains, preserved their independence almost everywhere.

—French Conquest. It will be remembered that in 1827, in consequence of a fruitless claim addressed to the French government by the dey, Hassein-ben-Hassem, on account of grain furnished in 1796, by the Jew Bacri, a debtor of the dey, the latter struck the French consul, M. Deval, with his fan. Algiers was blockaded directly, and all reparation being refused, a French army landed June 14, 1830, at Sidi-Ferruch and entered Algiers in triumph July 5. From that day is dated the abolition of piracy and the foundation of African France.

—Algiers taken, it remained to conquer Algeria. Oran was occupied for good in 1831, Bona in 1832, the ports of Arzew and Mostaganem in 1833, when Bougie also was taken. Tlemcen, occupied in 1836, was held by Cavaignac for seven months, at the end of which time General Bugeaud came to relieve the place. Clausel failed the same year before Constantine which was taken Oct. 13, 1837, by General Vallée after the death of General Damremont. Djidjelli was captured in 1839, Shershell, Médéa and Miliana in 1840. But it was only in 1841 on the accession of Gen. Bugeaud to the office of governor general, that the great African war commenced.

—Abd-el-Khader, saluted emir in 1832 by the Hashems south of Mascara, had been recognized as sovereign in a treaty of peace concluded by Gen. Desmichels in 1834. After breaking this treaty he defeated Gen. Trezel at Macta. It was a rout, and the enemy massacred the French wounded. Clausel, the same year, avenged this defeat by taking and destroying Mascara, the capital of the emir. The following year Bugeaud defeated Abd-el-Khader at Shiffa. Unfortunately he concluded with him, in 1837, the famous treaty of Tafna which gave up to the emir half of Algeria.

—The passage of the Iron Gates in 1839 by Marshal Vallée and the Duke of Orleans, was the occasion of a rupture with Abd-el-Khader. By the treaty of Tafna, the frontier line of the east, settled upon, was the road from Algiers to Constantine which no longer exists. The emir pretended that that line had been crossed by the French, and declared war. Marshal Vallée allowed the Arabs to invade and devastate Mitidja. They arrived in the neighborhood (sahel) of Algiers and their horsemen came to the sea-coast within cannon shot of the French forts. In 1840 the war became general in the centre and west. Gen. Bugeaud, appointed governor general in 1841, inaugurated a new system of war that was to bring about the ruin of Abd-el-Khader.

—The French base of operations, till then the sea, was transferred to the centre of the Tell between the sea and the mountain range which separates the Tell from the elevated plateaux. Military forces were firmly established from east to west at all points which commanded this strategic line. Thence light expeditionary corps were dispatched continually, operating near their basis, and forming a net which covered the country. At the same time Abd-el-Khader was isolated from his allies of the south by the erection of a chain of small forts which guarded the passes leading to the lofty plateaux of the Tell, of Oran and Algiers. When the net was extended the campaign began. The work lasted six years. Abd-el-Khader's permanent establishment at Boghar, at Taza, at Tackdemt, at Goudjela, were destroyed. All the tribes of the Tell, one after another, saw the French columns enter their territory, and learned by experience that neither the mountains of the Ouarensenis nor those of Dahra and Great Kabylia could protect them against the arms of France. The attacks made in the south by Yousouf, at Djebel-Amour, by Cavaignac, Renault and Géry among the Oulad-Sidi-Chikh, by Marey-Monge at Laghouat, deprived the enemy of every chance of succor from the Sahara populations. Abd-el-Khader still relied on the Moroccans, but these were repulsed in May and June, 1844, by Lamoricière and Bedeau, and finally conquered at Isly, Aug. 14, by Marshal Bugeaud.

—Nevertheless Abd-el-Khader could not be captured. If, during his absence in 1843, the Due d'Aumale deprived him at Taguin of his head-quarters, that great nomad town, the wandering capital of the emir, the latter, by a prodigious march executed the same year, over one-half of Algeria, eluded five army corps who were watching his passage. He came again in 1846 to Great Kabylia, which refused to rise up in his behalf. Having taken refuge in Morocco, he was afraid of being delivered up to France by the sultan of Fez. After the submission of his two lieutenants, Ben-Salim and Bel-Kacem, as well as Bou-Maja soon after, he surrendered to Gen. Lamoricière Dec. 23. 1847, at Sidi-Brahim, where two years before he had carried off Col. Montagnac and his column. The great African war came to an end with the downfall of the redoubtable chieftain. It only remained to finish the conquest and repress uprisings.

—In 1849, the taking of the oasis of Zaatcha after a siege of 52 days, the occupation of Bousada in 1852, the capture of Laghouat and the founding of Djelfa; in 1853, the creation of Géryville assured the French supremacy in the south. Great Kabylia, roused to rebellion from 1851 to 1853 by the cherif Bon-Barla, was finally subdued in 1857, under the government of marshal Randon. The posts of Tizi-Ouzon (1851), of Dra-el-Mizan (1855), and fort Napoleon (1857), now fort Republic, guarantees French rule in the interior of Great Kabylia.

—In 1859 the fruitless expedition of Gen. Martimprey, in Morocco, cost the lives of many thousand men from cholera. In 1864 a quarrel with the chiefs of Oulad-Sidi-Shikh, a tribe of Marabouts in the extreme south, whose religious influence is very great, brought about a war with the French of long duration. It caused an insurrection, the same year, in the Tell of Oran and in the south of the province of Algiers.

—It was hoped that the war with Prussia would be finished without an insurrection in
Edition: current; Page: [51]
Algeria, though there was not a single regiment of French regulars in the country. There were merely native regiments and gardes mobiles without military training and not feared by the Arabs. An order for the mobilization of the spahis to France led to an uprising Jan. 23, 1871. At Ain Guettar, on the frontiers of Tunis, the neighboring tribes joined with the spahis. Later, when peace was concluded, Mokhrani, grand chief of Medjana, who owed nearly a million at Constantine, rose up in his turn and carried with him all Great Kabylia. Soon the whole province of the east was in arms. The revolt was completely crushed only in November, 1871.

—French supremacy in Algeria is secured by three chains of posts, each extending from the boundary of Morocco to that of Tunis, the maritime line, the central, and the frontier line of the Tell. South of this last advance posts have been established in the Sahara.

—On the seaboard, from west to east, are the ports of Nemours, Mers-el-Kébir, Oran, Arzem, Mostaganem, Tenès, Shershell, Algiers, Dellys, Bouzie, Djidjelli, Collo, Stora, Phillippeville, Bona, and Calle. There are two fine natural harbors, Mers-el-Kébir and Bouzie; an excellent natural harbor, Arzem, which has been improved; two other natural harbors, Djidjelli and Collo, the latter of which is in good condition; the great harbor of Algiers, created, like that of Cherbourg, by means of dikes; that of Bona, less extensive, but which French engineers have made better than Algiers. The harbor of Oran was created by means of dikes. The harbor of Phillippeville has been greatly improved. There are no other real harbors, but merely foreign roadsteads, at other points on the coast.

—The central line of the Tell is the great strategic line of Algeria. The power that controls it is master of the country. The French hold it by virtue of a chain of settlements nearly all of which are situated at the points formerly occupied by the Turks and the Romans. On a line from west to east, the settlements are Lalla Maghnia, Tlemcen, and Bel-Abbes, the strategic centre of the province of Oran; Mascara, Relizane, Orléansville, Miliana, Médéa, Aumale, Bordj-bou-Arreridj, Sétif, Constantine, Guelma, and Souk-Ahras. The Arab invasions followed this line, from east to west, thence fell back to the northward and southward. The Romans, the Turks, and Marshal Bugeaud, conquered Algeria by occupying the central line as a basis of operations, while the Spaniards failed because they occupied the coast only.

—The frontier posts in the province of the Tell bar the entrance against invasions from the southward. These posts, in the mountainous districts, guard the passes which give ingress to the Tell; and on the plains they occupy the points which command the great roads of the south. From west to east, the posts are Sebdon, El-Hacaïba, Daïa, Saïda, Frenda, Tiaret, Tenièt-el-Haad, Boghar, which covers the entrance into the Tell through the valley of the Chelif; and Batua and Tebessa. These posts close the Tell against invasions by the herders from the south, while they open it to trade with them. Through these posts the herders come to barter the dates of the oasis and the wool of their flocks, for the cereals of the Tell which afford food to the south.

—On the south of the frontier of the Tell and on the road to the Sahara, the French permanently occupy Djelfa and Boucaada; and within the Sahara they occupy the oasis of Laghouat and Biskra, together with the post of Géryville. This occupation is intended to protect and confine, by crowding them between the northern posts and the frontier of the Tell, the pastoral tribes which their geographical position renders dependent on the Tell for their natural market.

—GOVERNMENT. The character of the government of Algeria is one of instability, and its normal condition change of form. The following are its principal phases of transformation: 1st. A provisory organization (1830-34). Authority exercised by the commander-in-chief of the army of occupation, who had under his immediate control a council called successively government commission, committee, administrative commission, and administrative council of the regency. Marshal Clausel confided the presidency of the committee and the territorial administration to the military intendant. The duke of Rovigo instituted a civil administration.

—2nd. Governor generalship. The ordinance of July 22, 1834, created a governor general of the French possessions in the north of Africa. The ordinance of April 15, 1845, changed this title to governor general of Algeria, divided Africa into three provinces, and each of these into a civil, an Arab and a mixed territory. It instituted a general mode of administration of civil affairs, an upper council, and a council of claims.

—In 1847 the ordinance of Sept. 1 inaugurated decentralization by appointing in each province a director of civil affairs and a council of administration. The progressive assimilation to France was commenced by the republic of 1848, which suppressed, on Dec. 9, the general administration of civil affairs, and created a department in each province with a prefect and a council of prefecture. Algeria had been in the jurisdiction of the ministry of war, where there had been created in 1837 a department under the name of division of Algiers, and later a department of the direction of affairs of Algeria, charged with the political and civil affairs, and besides a committee of consultation to examine all proposed laws, ordinances or regulations, as well as all affairs referred to it by the minister.

—3rd. Ministry of Algeria and the colonies, (decree of June 24, 1858). The governor general was replaced by a minister residing in Paris. The council of government was suppressed. Councils general were instituted. The jurisdiction of prefects in civil affairs and of generals of division in military affairs was amplified. Under the name of upper commandant of the land and sea forces, a general officer is made chief of the army of Africa.

—4th. Re-establishment of the governor generalship, (decrees of Nov. 24, and Dec 10, 1860).
Edition: current; Page: [52]
The ministry of Algeria and the colonies was suppressed. A governor general is entrusted with the command of the land and sea forces, the government and administration of Algeria. This officer is tantamount to chief of the state. He prepares the budget to be approved and presented to the chambers by the minister of war, as an addition to the military budget, and orders what grants shall be allowed. He prepares the decrees which the minister of war submits to the chief of the state for his signature and countersign. He appoints to certain offices. But the administration of justice, and French public instruction, religious worship, the custom and postal service, and the treasury, are each under the jurisdiction of a special ministry.

—Under the authority of the governor general the administration of Algeria is divided between two high functionaries, a sub-governor and a director of civil affairs, independent of each other. The sub-governor, in addition to his duties as chief of staff of the army of Africa, governs the military territory through three generals of division, with generals of brigade or colonels commanding subdivisions, and chief commanders of circuits. Each of these officers continues to keep under his orders one of those bureaus celebrated under the generic name of Arab bureaus, and which are named according to their degree, descending from the sub-governor to the commander of a circuit.

—The director of civil affairs administers the civil territory through three prefects, with sub-prefects and civil commissioners. These unite in themselves in places where the commune has not yet been organized, the functions of mayor, sub-prefect, and, at certain points, those of justice of the peace.

—To sum up, a superior council, of which six delegates from three general councils form a part, prepares the project of the budget for the general government and the assessment of taxes. A consulting council gives its advice on all affairs placed before it by the governor.

—In this organization the civil and the military authority were independent of each other, and each free on its own territory. Marshal Pélissier used to say, "I am neither civil nor military governor; I am governor general."

—By the decree of July 7, 1864, the civil was everywhere subordinated to the military authority. The generals commanding the three divisions took the title of commanders of provinces. The prefects were placed under their authority. received their instructions from them and addressed their reports to them. Algeria was subjected to a purely military government, which had, under its orders, a certain number of civil agents. Nevertheless, two decrees of 1866 and 1870 made the municipal and general councils elective.

—5th. A civil governor generalship, (law of Oct. 24, 1870). By this decree the delegation of Tours founded in principle the civil government such as it still exists, at least in form.

—The civil governor general retains the political, military and administrative powers of the military governor. He administers the former civil territory through a secretary general and three prefects, and the military territory through a chief commandant of the land and sea forces, who has under his orders as administrators of these territories, three generals of division, with commandants of subdivisions and circuits.

—To sum up, a superior council of government and a consulting committee are appointed, the first with more elective members than formerly, the second with some elective members, which was not the case in the council of the previous government.

—During the war with Germany, this government, as a whole, existed only on paper. The councils-general of Algeria had been dissolved simultaneously with those of France; the superior council could not be brought together for lack of members. Besides, the delegation of Tours, on account of representations from Algeria, had, in November, decided in principle on the abolition of the governor generalship, with the attendant offices which had been established or retained by it in October. Algeria was to be assimilated to France and its local institutions were to disappear. A decree had already deprived the chief commandant of the army and navy of authority over the tribes of the military territory, and another decree suppressed the special budget of Algeria by distributing it among the budgets of the different ministries. Of the institutions founded by the decree of Oct. 24 some could not come into existence, others existed only temporarily, and deprived of all assistance from the councils-general and the superior council could not come into regular operation.

—The government of M. Thiers retained the governor generalship and the superior council; it abolished de facto the office of commander of the army and navy and re-established the special budget of Algeria. Algeria has retained the six representatives in the national assembly accorded it by the delegation of Tours. Natives appointed by the government form a part of the general councils, in which the great majority are Frenchmen, and are elected. The natives have a deliberative voice. This has given rise to formal protests in the three councils.

—It would be difficult to define and classify the actual government of Algeria (1872.) Let it suffice to state that it bears the name of civil government and has as chief a naval officer who governs the regular military territory, that is, almost all of Algeria, through officers of the army.

—TERRITORIAL ADMINISTRATION. Before the revolution of September it had as basis the division of each province into two territories, one civil which constituted the department and was governed by a prefect, the other military and governed by the general commanding the military division. The decree of Oct. 24, 1870, has in principle suppressed the military, but in fact it has left the administration of the government to the officers who exercised it before without subjecting them to the prefect. The original military territory is yet (1872) in practice outside the authority of prefects. Officers manage it, under the direct
Edition: current; Page: [53]
authority of the civil governor general. The original civil territory forms but a diminutive part of Algeria. The administration of the country, as we see, has remained military in fact, although the governor bears the title of civil governor, and the designation 'military territory' no longer exists. The situation is undefined. There is no correspondence between things as they exist and the words which describe them. Algeria is in a state of transition between the military régime existing in fact and the civil régime which exists only in name. It is intended to increase the number of Algerian departments. The councils-general and municipal have the same attributes as in France. The councils-general have native members appointed by the government. The municipal councils are made up of members native and foreign, both elected, like the French council. There are no councils of the arrondissements.

—The Arab and Kabyle tribes of the original military territory are governed as formerly by military commandants who have Arab bureaus at their disposal. The title of these French agents has changed, but their powers have remained the same. They continue, among the tribes, to take charge of politics, the administration, the legal police, the assessment of taxes. They have always native chiefs at command called caïds, who, each in his own tribe, see their orders executed and collect the taxes.

—FINANCE. The Arab taxation has retained its former character. 1st. Achour, or tithes of grain, the taxable unit being the plow, (djebda), that is to say, the area which it is possible to cultivate annually with one plow. Every year the tax on a plow is determined by the amount of the crop. 2nd. The zekkat, tax on flocks and herds; the rate is fixed annually. 3rd. The hockor, or rent of lands, azel, belonging to the state and worked on a permanent lease by the natives. 4th. The lezma or obligation. It is collected in different ways. 5th. In the south, various taxes on trade, on the purchase of grain, on date palms.

—One-tenth of the Arab tax goes to the native chiefs who collect it, four-tenths of the remainder goes to the state, and six-tenths to the departmental budget.

—There has been long under consideration a project to replace the achour and zekkat, the tax on grain and cattle, by a land tax. Lands belonging to Europeans are not taxed, but registration dues, stamp dues, the customs, licenses, indirect taxes, postal and telegraphic charges, come almost exclusively upon Europeans. The budget of the governor generalship of Algeria furnishes the following figures:

1865, receipts...

17,713,804 francs.

1865, expenses...

25,350,000 "

1870, receipts...

16,500,000 "

1870, expenses...

14,616,000 "

1872, receipts...

17,043,000 "

1872, expenses...

22,615,014 "

The following are the chief items in the budget of 1872:

RECEIPTS.

Registration, stamps, domains and forests,

5,647,500 francs.

Customs...

2,351,000 "

Income from various sources...

7,421,500 "

Four-sixths of the Arab tax accruing to gov...

4,605,000 "

Post office...

1,000,000 "

Receipts from various sources of which 535,000 francs are from the telegraph...

623,000 "

EXPENSES.

Central administration...

514,500 francs.

Departmental administration...

969,660 "

Prisons...

973,200 "

Telegraphic service...

1,041,700 "

Administration and management of Arab tribes...

1,586,390 "

Financial service...

3,122,762 "

Maritime and military service...

500,000 "

Colonization...

1,325,600 "

Topography and land registers...

1,035,500 "

The budget commission of 1872 estimates that by transferring the collection of the Arab taxes which, on the average, yield ten millions, from native to French financial agents, the product of these taxes would be perhaps doubled, while the burdens of the Arab tax payer would be at the same time decreased.

—Maritime duties, imposed on the frontier and collected by the custom house for the benefit of Algeria, yield on an average four millions net. Of this, four-fifths, distributed according to the number of the population,6 go to the municipal budgets, the rest to the departmental budgets, which are mainly supplied by the six-tenths of the Arab tax which the state has surrendered to them.

—The administration of justice in the case of the Europeans is the same as in France. The natives remain, so far as the civil law is concerned, under the law of Islam; but crimes and misdemeanors committed by Mussulmans are punished according to the French law. Civil cases are judged in Kabylia by the djemmâa, everywhere else by the cadis. Councils called Medjelès may revise the judgment of the cadis, but an appeal, properly speaking, is only made to
Edition: current; Page: [54]
the court of appeal at Algiers, and tribunals of the first resort at Oran and Constantine to which are attached, for this purpose, Mussulman assessors. Imperial legislation has forbidden appeal in questions of state and of marriage. It does not permit a case to come directly from the cadis to a French judge unless with the consent of both parties. Complaints are raised against these two regulations and against the institution of the Medjelès.

—RELIGIONS. To the three religions in France, where ministers are paid by the state Mohammedanism is added in Algeria. The government has appropriated the estates of the mosques, the property which before the conquest contributed to the support of public instruction, charity and pilgrimages to Mecca.

—Algeria has an archbishop and two bishops. There is a Protestant and a Jewish consistory in each province.

—PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. The academy of Algiers embraces three departments. Its rector is aided by two inspectors. There is a lyceum at Algiers and communal colleges at Oran, Constantine, Bona and Phillippeville, and a secondary school of medicine at Algiers. In 1870 the municipal council withdrew everywhere their aid from clerical schools. The communal are lay schools.

—MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. Algeria had neither roads nor bridges; many of both have been constructed, but the military government has neglected to build a road from Constantine to Algiers. The more important half of Algiers is connected with the centre of administration only by sea, and Constantine is in more frequent connection with Marseilles and even with Paris than with Algiers. Neither is there a road between Bona and Constantine. On the other hand, roads have been built along lines which are little frequented (1872).

—The railroad from Algiers to Oran unites the east with the centre of Algeria. Constantine is put in communication with the sea by the Phillippeville railroad.

—COLONIZATION. Since France decided to establish herself definitely on the north coast of Africa, it was understood, that in face of a conquered population which was hostile to her by reason even of their religion, French rule would be very precarious until a great many European settlements should have formed a point of support for the army and a basis for French power in Africa. Armed occupation could only be temporary; possession by the plow could be the only permanent and definite one. Therefore the government of July, the republic and the empire, at least till 1861, were favorable to colonization.

—But colonization encountered many obstacles, some arising from war, others from the nature of the country, still others from the errors of the administration. Till the submission of Abd-el-Khader in 1847, the want of security prevented the spread of colonization beyond the vicinity of towns. The colonists were established in a region where everything had to be, so to speak, created—roads, bridges, villages, towns, and, we might add, even the soil itself. Moreover it was necessary for the colonists to change all their European habits. They had to learn, by rude experience, that in Africa, from June 15 to Oct. 15, there is a dead season between harvest and the working period, when the earth requires but little care, and hard labor in the sun is a cause of death. They did not know that the climate of Algeria demands more sobriety, and that the man who works with his hands needs more substantial nourishment than does the farm laborer of France. They needed time to accustom themselves to live after the manner of Africans and become acclimated. On the other hand, the exigencies of war and the errors of administration raised up artificial bars to colonization. Instead of concentrating the settlers in a limited circle where they might have aided each other, both in a military and industrial sense, they scattered new villages about to insure communication along strategic lines. Large concessions of land made through favor exhausted the domain of colonization and remained uncultivated, while bona fide settlers, village agriculturists, received only from 7 to 10 hectares. Roads were wanting for the transport of products to market, transportation for a short distance was more costly than the freight from Marseilles to Algiers. Military administration found it profitable to have wheat and even forage brought from France instead of buying them at a distance of a few miles from the coast. If Algerian products arrived in a port of the metropolis, they were stopped on the way for the payment of customs dues. To sum up, the delays of French administration discouraged immigration. A settler having arrived in Algiers with a little capital, and the vague promise of a concession of land, spent everything before obtaining what he sought, and returned to France by free passage to tell his fellow villagers that there was nothing to be done in Algeria.

—Still colonization advanced. During the last period of the monarchy of July a large body of immigrants arrived in Algeria. The republic of 1848 established a large number in Africa. The coup d'état, and the proscription which followed it, sent to Algeria a large number of involuntary colonists who took a liking to the country and remained there. The military authorities continued faithful to the idea of the French government and of the generals who had conquered Algeria. They desired greatly the establishment of an African France, created, according to the notion of Marshal Bugeaud, by the sword and the plow. But when the military government was replaced in 1858 by the ministry of Algeria, that is to say, by a civil government, the military party suddenly changed its politics. Their unforeseen fall taught them that the progress of colonization must have, as a necessary consequence, the setting aside of military power and the establishment of civil government. In their own interest, therefore, they became hostile
Edition: current; Page: [55]
to colonization and began a campaign against it which is not yet terminated (1872).

—The military party persuaded Napoleon III. that colonization was impossible, that settlers were the natural enemies of the Arabs, that there was no future in Algeria except for the Arabs, and that a military government alone could elevate the Arab race and restore it to something of its ancient splendor. Napoleon III. resolved, therefore, to hinder colonization, and, instead of an African France, he undertook the foundation of his famous Arab kingdom.

—The Arab people were to be subjected in perpetuity to great native chiefs rendering obedience to generals. It was even a question of re-establishing a native feudalism and superimposing on it a French military feudalism. They thought of creating great military fiefs. The emperor, king of Algeria, would then have great French and petty Mohammedan vassals. As to the French colonists who were an obstacle to this plan, it was thought at one time of depriving them of their property. Marshal Pélissier put an end to this idea by answering the emperor that its realization would cost four milliards of francs. But it was decided and declared that the colonists could not be agriculturists, and that they should, as in Java and British India, confine themselves to playing the part of overseers of the native industries, managers of factories, and merchants.

—Colonization alone can save the Arab race from complete ruin. We have seen, during the last famine, Arabs of the military districts, where there are no colonists, perish by hundreds of thousands, while those of the civil territory, finding work, supplies, and support among the colonists, withstood the effects of the crisis.

ALGERINE WAR

ALGERINE WAR (IN U. S. HISTORY.) From the time when Mohammedanism first gained a foothold in northern Africa, the Barbary powers carried on a naval warfare, at first for religion and afterward for profit, against every nation which refused to buy a peace from them. Before the American revolution, the American trade in the Mediterranean, amounting to about 20,000 tons of shipping, was protected by passes from the imperial government at London. In July, 1785, the Algerines began capturing American vessels, and continued to do so until 1793, except when their vessels were blockaded by a Portuguese fleet. In 1786-7 a treaty was concluded with Morocco; one with Algiers, Sept. 5, 1795; one with Tripoli, Nov. 4, 1796; and one with Tunis, Aug. 26, 1799. By these treaties the United States purchased peace either by a gross sum or by a yearly tribute; but the notorious doubt and difficulty of making the treaties, had at least compelled the formation of a small American navy, against the opposition of the republicans. (See DEMOCRATIC PARTY, II.) The payment of the tribute did not diminish the insolence of the recipients, and, in 1800, Bainbridge, who commanded the frigate George Washington, wrote to the navy department, "I hope I shall never again be sent to Algiers with tribute, unless I am authorized to deliver it from the mouths of our cannon."

—In 1801, Tripoli, dissatisfied with inequalities in the tribute, declared war, and the other Barbary powers began to be clamorous for fresh presents. In 1802, congress having recognized the existence of war with Tripoli, Commodore Morris was sent to the Mediterranean with six vessels, and four other vessels were rapidly equipped to follow him. The grounding of the frigate Philadelphia in the harbor of Tripoli, Oct. 31, 1803, her capture, and her subsequent destruction by Decatur, and the bombardment of Tripoli, were the principal events of this war until a land expedition by Eaton, American consul at Tunis, compelled Tripoli to make peace, June 4, 1805. The restrictive policy, which soon after was begun by the republican party, (see EMBARGO,) by checking American commerce, diminished the temptations to attack it; but the abandonment of this policy in 1810, renewed the temptation which the Barbary powers always found in an unprotected flag. In 1812 the dey of Algiers declared war against the United States, and from that time
Edition: current; Page: [56]
until 1815 British cruisers were allowed to capture American vessels in the Barbary ports. In May, 1815, Decatur was sent to the Mediterranean with ten vessels. He sailed directly to Algiers, capturing on his way the largest frigate in the Algerine navy, and compelled the terrified dey to appear in person on the quarter deck of the American flagship and there sign a treaty, June 30, 1815, which formally abandoned any claim to tribute in future. He then compelled Tunis and Tripoli to pay indemnity for British captures. The payment of tribute was thus terminated.

—The political importance of the Algerine wars lay only in the fact that they compelled the republican administration, in spite of its dislike to a navy, (see DEMOCRATIC PARTY, II., III., GUNBOAT SYSTEM,) to retain a nucleus of it and thus to insure the principal successes of the war of 1812. But the administration was embarrassed by the effort to combine its two opposite lines of policy, a sea-going fleet against the Barbary powers and gunboats against Great Britain and France; and many of its naval budgets were passed by its supporters in congress in secret sessions. The Algerine wars also led to an increase in the tariff. By the act of March 26, 1804, renewed at intervals until 1815, 2 1/2 per cent. additional ad valorem duties were imposed on all importations in American vessels, and 10 per cent. on foreign vessels, to form a fund for protecting American vessels against the Barbary powers (commonly called the Mediterranean Fund).

ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS

ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS (IN U. S. HISTORY), two acts passed by the federalist majority in the summer of 1798. The session opened in December, 1797, with a strong federalist majority in the senate, and a democratic-republican majority in the house, which for several months voted down every attempt to resist by force the aggressions of France upon American commerce. But the publication of the dispatches from the X. Y. Z. mission in April, 1798, erased party divisions for the time, silenced the republican leaders, converted all the lukewarm republicans to an intense hostility to France, and gave both houses to federalist control. The leading republican journalists were mostly foreigners, Frenchmen, and refugee Scotchmen, Irishmen, and Englishmen, who had excited the warmest hatred of the federalists by their scurrilous and intemperate language, and by their open advocacy of the extreme violence of French republicanism. One of the first objects of the federalists, after providing for an increase of the army and navy, was to muzzle these aliens, and to this end the acts above mentioned were passed.

—There were three alien laws. The first was an amendment of the naturalization laws, extending the necessary previous residence to fourteen years instead of five, and requiring five years previous declaration of intention to become a citizen instead of three. Alien enemies could not become citizens at all. A register was to be kept of all aliens resident in the country, who were to enter their names under penalties in case of neglect; and in case of application to be naturalized the certificate of an entry in this register was to be the only proof of residence whenever residence began after the date of this act. The second, passed June 25 was limited by its terms to two years of operation. It authorized the president to order out of the country all such aliens as he might judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or might suspect to be concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations. The third provided that, whenever any foreign nation declared war against or invaded the United States, all resident aliens, natives or citizens of the hostile nation, might, upon a proclamation to that effect, to be issued at the president's discretion, be apprehended and secured, or removed. The first and third of these acts met no warm opposition, though the first was repealed when the republicans gained power. The second is the one which is known pre-eminently as the alien act. It was opposed as an unconstitutional interference with the right secured to the existing states to permit until 1808 the importation or emigration of any such persons as they might think proper; as an attempt to usurp undelegated powers over aliens who were legally under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they lived (see KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS, IV.); and as an unconstitutional interference with the right of trial by jury. The first alien act, as to naturalization, was repealed by the act of April 14, 1802, which re-established the former requisites of time of residence. The second and third of these acts have no further history, for no prosecutions or direct presidential action took place under or by virtue of them. They are important only as one moving cause of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, and of the overthrow of the federal party at the next presidential election.

—According to Jefferson a sedition law had been threatened in April, but no steps toward it were taken in congress, until June 26, when Lloyd, of Maryland, a federalist senator, introduced a bill in four sections, to define more precisely the crime of treason, and to define, and punish the crime of sedition. The first section of Lloyd's bill declared the people of France enemies of the United States, and adherence to them, giving them aid or comfort, to be treason, punishable with death. The second section defined misprision of treason and prescribed its penalties. The third section made it a high misdemeanor, punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, imprisonment from six months to five years, and binding
Edition: current; Page: [57]
to good behavior at the discretion of the court, for any persons unlawfully to combine and conspire together, with intent to oppose any measures of the government of the United States, directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding office under the government of the United States from executing his trust, or with like intent to commit, advise, or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination. The fourth section provided that any person who, by writing, printing, publishing, or speaking, should attempt to justify the hostile conduct of the French, or to defame or weaken the government or laws of the United States by any seditious or inflammatory declarations or expressions, tending to induce a belief that the government or any of its officers were influenced by motives hostile to the constitution, or to the liberties or happiness of the people, might be punished by fine or imprisonment, the amount and time being left blank in the draft of the bill. The first and second sections were struck out, and the bill, having thus been razeed to a bill of two sections the third and fourth of Lloyd's draft, passed the senate by a vote of 12 to 6. In the house it also passed, by a vote of 44 to 41, but with a very material change. The extremely objectionable second section, (the fourth of the draft above given), whose intentional looseness and vagueness of expression could have made criminal every form of party opposition to the federalist majority, was struck out. In place of it was inserted a new second section which subjected to a fine not exceeding $2,000, and imprisonment not exceeding two years, the printing or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the congress, or the president, with intent to defame them or to bring them into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against them the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, or with intent to excite any unlawful combination for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any lawful act of the president, or to excite generally to oppose or to resist any such law or act, or to aid, abet or encourage any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States. A third section was then added, providing that in all prosecutions under this section the truth of the matter stated might be given in evidence, as a good defense, the jury to be judges both of law and fact; and by a fourth section the act was to continue in force only until March 4, 1801. The credit of the last two sections is due to Bayard of Delaware. The bill as finally passed, therefore, consisted of four sections, the first being the third of Lloyd's draft, and the second, third and fourth the ones just given. The objections to it are its evident intention to restrain freedom of speech and of the press, both of which are guaranteed by the constitution, and its attempt to enlarge the sphere of the federal judiciary by impliedly recognizing its common law jurisdiction in criminal matters. The first objection can hardly be met successfully; in this respect the law was patently unconstitutional, partisan, and dangerous, and the only precedents in justification of it are drawn from the action of state legislatures or the federal government during the revolution or under the confederation, (but see WAR POWER). The second requires further consideration.

—In civil matters the rules of the common law have always been followed by federal as by state courts. In criminal matters the state courts, in addition to the jurisdiction given them by statute, had always exercised a very extensive jurisdiction, which they still exercise, though to a less extent, over a class of offenses which are so not by any statutory enactment, but by custom, that is, by common law. Any of these could of course, at any time, be taken out of the common law by statute, and made a statutory offense with strict bounds of punishment; and libel has since been so treated by all the states. But in 1798 libel was still a common law offense, and the state courts claimed and exercised arbitrary power as to the extent of the punishment to be inflicted in case of conviction. It had never been decided whether the federal courts possessed this common law criminal jurisdiction, but it was known that most of the federal judges believed that they did possess it, and most of the federalists were inclined to the same opinion. The republicans, on the contrary, believed that the crimes expressly enumerated in the constitution—treason, counterfeiting United States coin or securities, piracy, and offenses against the laws of nations—were the only crimes over which federal courts had jurisdiction. If the doctrine of the federalists was correct (and it was certainly never contradicted by the federal courts until 14 years had passed, and the judiciary, with the other departments of government, had fallen into democratic hands) then the sedition law was a very salutary remedial modification of the common law, since it allowed the truth to be given in evidence, and laid down bounds of punishment, which the judges could not pass. If, on the other hand, the republican doctrine was correct, the sedition law was a pernicious precedent, since, by making a common law offense statutory, it implied a common law criminal jurisdiction in the federal courts, wherever statutes did not interfere. The republicans had little legal talent in their ranks in 1798, and had made little open opposition to the federalist claims on this point. But Jefferson at once perceived the limitless consequences which were entailed by the admission and permanent establishment of the principle implied in the sedition law. It was law, until overthrown by the supreme court, which was not at all likely while the supreme court was under federalist control. Individuals were thus irrevocably brought under the operation of a law which, under the very general term of "opposing" the government, made party opposition criminal. To prevent the extension
Edition: current; Page: [58]
to the state governments of the same prohibition of opposition, under some as yet unthoughtof product of federalist legal ingenuity, the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were prepared and passed, (see KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS).

—It is not a little characteristic, however, of the immature politics of 1798, that the alien law directed mainly against French refugees, provoked far more republican rhetoric than the sedition law, directed against native born citizens as well, though there were at least six prosecutions under the latter act and none at all under the former. Neither party had yet advanced far enough in political experience to learn that "the common law offense of libeling a government is ignored in constitutional systems, as inconsistent with the genius of free institutions." In the case of the sedition law the republicans felt the blow rather because it was aimed at them as a party than because of any deep-seated aversion to such laws as legitimate weapons in party warfare; in the case of the alien law, its apparent enmity to France was the touchstone by which alone most of the republicans judged of its iniquity. (See KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS, FEDERAL PARTY, DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY.)

—See 2 Benton's Debates of Congress; 1 von Hoist's United States, 142; 5 Hildreth's United States, 215-236; 1 Schouler's United States, 393; and authorities under articles above referred to. The alien acts of June 18, June 25, and July 6, are in 1 Stat. at Large, 566, 570, 577, (see also authorities under AMERICAN PARTY). The sedition law of July 14 is in 1 Stat. at Large, 596. For the subsequent denial of common law criminal jurisdiction, by federal courts, see 7 Cranch, 32; 1 Wheat., 415; 8 Pet., 658 (per McLean, J.). The argument in favor of such jurisdiction will be found in Story's Commentaries, § 158 (note), and authorities there cited; against it, in 1 Bishop's Criminal Law, §§ 16-18, and authorities there cited. Lyon's fine was refunded by act of July 4, 1840, (6 Stat. at Large, 802), and Cooper's by act of July 29, 1850, (9 Stat.at Large, 799), the money in both cases going to the heirs.

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

ALIENS

ALIENS In the early days of Rome, a foreigner, unless under the protection of a patron and occupying the position of a client, was without the protection of the law, both as to his person and his property. Whatever the Roman citizen took from him, he acquired by the same title that he did the "unclaimed shell on the beach" which he picked up. Exceptions to this general rule owed their origin to special treaties which secured to members of a foreign political community certain rights within the commonwealth of Rome; and it is not unlikely that these treaties formed the primitive structure which gradually gave rise to the body of private international law known as the ius gentium, side by side with the civil law. The principle of the total and absolute exclusion of foreigners, is clearly traceable in both the constitution and the civil law of the Roman common wealth during its early period. But the presence of a large number of foreigners within the dominion, and the necessities of trade, not only gave rise to the treaties referred to, but led the Roman lawyers to devise means whereby disputes between aliens and the citizens of Rome might be settled. They refused to decide these cases in accordance with the civil law, to whose benefits none but the citizens of the Roman commonwealth were admitted. From the rules of law, which were common to Rome and the several Italian tribes, and which were applied in settling the controversies to which members of such tribes might be a party, the Roman jurists built up a system of law which, though suggested in its origin by the spirit of scorn and disdain with which the Roman citizen looked upon all foreigners, became, with the aid of Greek ideas—as a body of laws common to all nations—the source of many of the principles of natural justice.7

—In England an alien is defined as one born out of the allegiance of the king. In the United States an alien is one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, who has not been naturalized under the constitution and laws of the United States. The children of ambassadors and ministers at foreign courts, though born on foreign soil, are not aliens.

—As distinguished from aliens, natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This follows the rule of the common law. In settling the rule relative to the distinction between aliens and citizens, in the jurisprudence of the United States, the courts held that the subject of alienage, under our constitution, is a national subject, and that the law on this subject, which prevailed in the states, became the common law of the United States when the federal union was established. Citizenship as distinguished from alienage is a national right.

—To create allegiance by birth, the person must be born, not only with in the territory, but within the allegiance of the government. A citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the government of the United States without its permission, to be declared by law; and as there is no existing legislation bearing on this subject, the rule of the common law remains unchanged.

—By the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside." The citizens of the federal union are, therefore, not to be treated, within the territory and jurisdiction of the different states, as aliens.

—During the residence of aliens in a country, they owe a local allegiance to its government, and are equally bound with natives to obey all laws for the maintenance of the peace and the preservation of public order, which do not especially relate to the rights and the conduct of citizens. This principle is universally recognized and adopted, as being alike dictated by justice and the public safety. If an alien commits an unlawful act, or is involved in disputes,
Edition: current; Page: [59]
with a citizen, or any other resident foreigner, he is amenable to the ordinary tribunals of the country. In New York, resident aliens are liable to be enrolled in the militia, provided they are lawfully seized of any real estate within the state; and they are, in that case, declared to be subject to duties, assessments, and taxes, as if they were citizens. They can not, however, exercise any of the political rights and privileges which do, and ought to, form the sole and exclusive prerogatives of citizenship. They are, therefore, not capable of voting at an election, or of being elected or appointed to any office of public trust or honor. In addition to this, they are also incapable of serving as jurors.

—Should an alien come to the United States with the intention of making it his permanent home, he will find in the law an easy means of removing his disabilities, and securing all the rights of citizenship, including that of taking an active share in the administration of the government. The acts of congress regulating and providing for the naturalization of foreigners need not be more than referred to here. A person naturalized under those acts, becomes entitled to all the privileges and immunities of native citizens, except that a residence of seven years is required to enable him to hold a seat in congress, and that no person, save a native born citizen, is eligible to the office of governor in some of the states, or of president of the United States.

—The unjust and inhospitable rule by which the most civilized states of antiquity were characterized, prevailed in many parts of Europe, down to the middle of the last century. The law which claimed, for the benefit of the state, the effects of a deceased foreigner who left no native heirs, existed in France as late as the commencement of the French revolution. This rule of the French law was not only founded on the Roman law, but it was also justified by the narrow and singular policy of preventing the wealth of the kingdom from passing into the hands of foreigners. This provision of the droit d'aubaine was abolished by the constitution of the first constituent assembly, in 1791, and foreigners were admitted, on very liberal terms, and were declared capable of acquiring and disposing of property in the same manner as native citizens. This doctrine was more or less followed by subsequent legislation, and the treaties of France with other governments.

—According to the common law, an alien can not acquire a title to real property by descent, or a title created in any other way by mere operation of law. The law quœ nihil frustra never casts the freehold upon an alien heir who can not keep it. It is understood to be the general rule, that even a native subject can not take by representation from an alien, because the latter has no inheritable blood through which a title can be obtained. The statute of 11 and 12 Wm. III., however, was passed to cure this disability, enabling natural born subjects to inherit, under certain restrictions, the estate of their ancestors, notwithstanding that those under whom they claimed or from whom they derived their title, were aliens. The provisions of this statute have been amplified by those of 33 and 34 Vict., c. 14, by which aliens are enabled to take, acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property of every description, (except British ships), and to transmit a title to land, in all respects as natural born British subjects.

—The former statute is in force in several of the United States, but even where it is not, the courts are very liberal in their construction of the common law, and willing to conform to the enlarged policy of the present day in rather contracting than extending the disabilities attaching to alienage. As to the question touching the distinction of the ante nati and post nati, at one time the subject of much controversy, the doctrine was finally settled in this country, and persons born in England, or elsewhere out of the United States, before the 4th of July, 1776, and who continued to reside out of the United States after that event, were considered aliens, and incapable of inheriting an estate in lands in the United States.

—Again, according to the common law, although an alien may purchase land, or take it by devise, he is still exposed to the danger of having his lands forfeited to the state, upon an inquest of office found, that is, on inquiry as to whether the sovereign is entitled to the possession of the property, real or personal, as against any other claimant. The alien's title is held to be good against every person but the state. If he should die before an inquest is had, the inheritance can not descend, but escheats. If he should undertake to sell to a citizen, the prerogative right of forfeiture is not barred, and the purchaser takes the property subject to the right of the government to seize it. His conveyance is good as against himself, but the title is voidable by the sovereign upon the proper inquiry being had. According to Lord Coke, an alien merchant is the only one who may take a leasehold interest in land; he is, however, restricted to a house, and if he dies before the termination of the lease, the remainder of the term is forfeited to the sovereign. The reason is, that the law gave him the privilege of habitation only, as essential to his trade, and not for the benefit of his representatives.

—In many of the states the disabilities of aliens in respect to holding lands are removed by statute, though under certain conditions, such as that the aliens must be residents, or have declared their intention of becoming citizens, or both. As far as personal property is concerned, aliens are capable of acquiring, holding and transmitting it as are citizens, and they can bring suit for the recovery and protection of their property.

—According to the authority of jurists such as Grotius, Bynkershoek and Martens, a state has the right, on the breaking out of hostilities with a foreign government, to treat persons as enemies who owe allegiance to that government, and to deal with their property found within the territory of the state as the property of enemies. It has the right to confiscate such property and to detain aliens as prisoners of war. But modern governments, while
Edition: current; Page: [60]
modifying and softening this rigorous doctrine by stipulations and treaties, have more or less made special provision in their own legislation, for the security of the persons and property of aliens whose government may be at war with them, Thus it was provided by the great charter—though similar privileges had been granted fifteen years before, in 1200, by special charter8 —that, on the breaking out of war, foreign merchants found in England, and belonging to the country of the enemy, should be attached "without harm of body or goods" until it should be ascertained how English merchants were treated by the enemy; and "if our merchants," the charter says, "be safe and well treated there, theirs shall be likewise with us."9

—The statutes and judicial decisions which followed this liberal provision of the great charter, tended rather to increase than diminish its privileges. Alien merchants are allowed forty days to depart the realm with their goods; which period is extended for another forty days in case they are prevented from departing on account of accident. The legislation of the United States is dictated by the same wise and humane policy. The act of congress of July 6, 1798, c. 73, authorizes the president, in case of war, to determine the conduct to be observed toward subjects of the hostile government, who, being aliens, may be within the United States, and in what cases and on what security, their residence should be permitted; and it declared in reference to those who were to depart, that they should be allowed such reasonable time as might be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality, "for the recovery, disposal and removal of their goods and effects, and for their departure." Yet, notwithstanding this, it was held that the strict right of confiscating the property of resident aliens whose government was in hostility to ours, still existed in congress, and that the question as to what should be done with this kind of property, was one rather of policy than of law, and that the exercise of that right rested in the sound discretion of the sovereign body of the nation.

—As to the question, whether the state, where an alien may have his domicile, should enforce a judgment rendered against him, either in his native country or in another state, it seems to be the opinion of the continental jurists, that, under their municipal laws, such judgment can not be enforced; it is simply within its own territorial jurisdiction, and as far as the imperium of the state extends, that judgments rendered according to law, can be enforced. Yet, inasmuch as it is the business of the state to embody in its laws and institutions the ideas of justice and right, and as the government is bound to recognize and encourage the same tendency in the laws and institutions of all civilized states, it is held to be the better rule, that the lawful judgments of the courts of one state shall be enforcible in another, provided it be shown that the court had jurisdiction of the cause; that it was decided according to the laws in force within its jurisdiction, and that the judgment does not require the doing of anything which is contrary to the laws of the country in which it is sought to be enforced.

—During his domicile, an alien is subject to the police regulations and criminal law of the country where he may sojourn. Whether he can also be tried and sentenced there for offenses he may have committed elsewhere than in his native state, is a question upon which neither the legislation of the different countries of Europe, nor the opinions of jurists seem to agree. On the continent it is considered the better opinion, that, contrary to the rule prevailing in the United States and in England, where aliens are not tried for offenses committed elsewhere, aliens should be tried and punished for such offenses wherever they may be domiciled.10

—The power of taxation as regards aliens, can not be exercised by a government to the same extent as regards its own citizens or subjects. Aliens should not be subject to taxation or assessment beyond what is required of them by law; and such tax or assessment should be levied on the property they possess, or should be imposed upon them by reason of the business they may carry on, in the country where they reside.

—Aliens can not, and should not, be held liable to military service, or to any impost for military purposes. Aliens have the right to leave the state where they may be domiciled at pleasure; and the government has no authority to prevent their departure, except in cases where they have entered into some obligation which they are bound to discharge in favor of the government, or in favor of its citizens or subjects, or in case the alien has committed some offense for which he is punishable under the laws of such government. As aliens are at liberty to depart from the country where they may be sojourning, or have been domiciled, the government has an equal right to exclude them from its territory, and in that event, an alien has no redress beyond the protection and remonstrance of his native government, in case the foreign government should exercise its right of expatriation without just cause.

—The relation of the citizen or subject to his government is not only such as to impose certain duties upon him in case he should reside in a foreign country, but as to secure to him
Edition: current; Page: [61]
certain rights. Hence he not only retains all the rights and privileges guaranteed to him by the constitution and laws of his native state, but he may also ask the protection and intervention of his government as against any oppressive or unlawful act on the part of the foreign government. And his native government is bound to use every means pointed out by the law of nations, and the dictates of humanity and justice, for the protection of its citizens or subjects in a foreign country where they may be domiciled or sojourn as aliens.

ALLEGIANCE

ALLEGIANCE (IN U.S. HISTORY). I 1774-89. Until the opening of the American revolution, native or naturalized British subjects owed allegiance to the British crown, and, for more than a year after the armed forces of the king and his American dominions had met in battle, this obligation of allegiance was still acknowledged. The royal proclamation of Aug. 23, 1775, declaring the American colonists rebels, the act of parliament in December, 1775, authorizing the capture of American vessels, wherever found, the pamphlet of Payne, Common Sense, and, still more, the bombardments of Falmouth, (now Portland, Maine), Oct. 18, 1775, and of Norfolk, in Virginia, Jan. 1, 1776, were all arguments which convinced the colonists that allegiance, being dependent on protection, was no longer due to the king. The continental congress, however, which had already, in great measure, come under the control of the state legislatures, did not claim the allegiance of the American people, but resolved June 24, 1776: "That all persons abiding within any of the united colonies, and deriving protection from the laws of the same, owed allegiance to the said laws, and were members of the same; ***** and that all persons members of, or owing allegiance to, any of the united colonies, who should levy war against any of the said colonies within the same, or be adherent to the king of Great Britain, or other enemies of the said colonies, or any of them, within the same, giving to him or them aid or comfort, were guilty of treason against such colony." Jan. 25, 1777, Sir William Howe by proclamation offered protection to such citizens of New Jersey as should take the oath of allegiance to the king. Washington at once replied by a counter-proclamation, ordering all persons, who had thus received protection, to surrender their protections and take the oath of allegiance to the United States, or retire within the British lines. The novel idea of allegiance to the United States was the subject of very general and adverse criticism until Washington explained that he had prescribed no form of oath, and had only instructed his subordinates to insist upon an obligation "in no manner to injure the states." In February, 1778, congress prescribed the form of an oath, to be taken by officers of the army, and all others serving under congress, which was simply a renunciation of allegiance to the king of Great Britain, an acknowledgment of the independence of the United States, and an obligation to defend and serve them. This non-committal obligation remained the rule throughout the confederation. The state constitutions, adopted during the revolution and confederation, all provided for an oath of allegiance to the state alone, of which the following may serve as an example: "I, A.B., do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify and declare that the commonwealth of Massachusetts is, and of right ought to be, a free, sovereign and independent state, and I do swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the said commonwealth ****."

—II. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. The constitution (articles III. VI.) introduced two new features into the national government: not only United States senators and representatives, but all members of state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and of the several states, were to be sworn to support the constitution; and the crime of "treason against the United States," which had no existence under the confederation, was stated and defined. The 1st congress at once enforced both these provisions. The act of June 1, 1789, provided for the new oath of allegiance; and the act of April 30, 1790, declared the punishment of treason against the United States (see also ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS). The state constitutions, thereafter adopted, contain the oath of allegiance to the state, but bound up in it is the oath of allegiance to the United States.

—The wave of reaction against the establishment of the national will as the basis of national government, (see UNITED STATES), which began to be apparent in the south about 1830, and which culminated in the rebellion, was marked by the introduction of a new and subtle doctrine as to allegiance. It defined allegiance as the paramount submission due by the citizen to the constitution and government of the state to which he belongs; and held that the citizen of a state owed to the government of the United States not allegiance, but obedience, because his own state, as a party to the confederation, enjoined it. It would follow from this that the citizen was bound as well to refuse obedience to the United States, and to array himself in arms against the national government, whenever ordered to do so by his state. A clear conception of this doctrine, and of its general acceptance by educated men in the south, will show the reason of the astonishingly sudden disappearance of the union party in the south in 1861; and will explain the course of A. H. Stephens, for example, who repeatedly and sincerely urged the maintenance of the union in December, 1860, and ninety days afterward, his state having seceded in the interim, was vice-president of the confederate states, with his own full concurrence.

—The result of the rebellion settled the question of the citizen's obligation
Edition: current; Page: [62]
to "follow his state" against every other possible authority. The state constitutions formed in 1867-8 (see SECESSION, RECONSTRUCTION) contain provisions of which the following extract from that of Alabama is an example: "That this state has no right to sever its relations to the federal union, or to pass any law in derogation of the paramount allegiance of the citizens of this state to the government of the United States."

—After the states had been re-admitted to the union under these constitutions, some of them, as Texas and Arkansas, framed new constitutions in which the above provision was omitted. But as the supreme court has decided that the conditions, of which the above was a principal one, under which the state was admitted are binding upon the state, and that the state is estopped to deny their validity, it would seem that this provision, though omitted, is still binding in law. As matter of fact and politics it has been still more emphatically settled by war.

—The doctrine of the federal courts has always been that allegiance may be dissolved by the mutual consent of the government and its subjects or citizens, though the few decisions on this point touch only the deposition of allegiance by aliens, and the southern doctrine as to domestic allegiance has never been formally before the federal courts. A single case (cited in 3 Dall., below) lays down the principle that renunciation of allegiance to a state government does not imply or draw after it renunciation of allegiance to the United States. The British government, on the other hand, until the passage of its liberal naturalization act in 1844, refused to recognize the American doctrine (see EMBARGO, II.).

ALLEGIANCE

ALLEGIANCE, Oath of. The long civil wars which desolated England had, among other results, that of creating a host of pretenders to the crown, which passed from hand to hand during the War of the Roses. Thus, after the death of queen Mary, there were no less than fifteen competitors for the inheritance of the daughter of Henry VIII. Elisabeth, having had trouble enough in securing her rights, sought for means to strengthen her authority. The first parliament which she convoked therefore proposed to satisfy the wishes of the queen, and, for the first time, prescribed the oath of allegiance. By this oath, which might be exacted from every person twelve years of age and upward, the queen was recognized as the only and legitimate sovereign; fidelity and obedience were promised her; and she was declared head and supreme defender of the church of England. King James I. had the form of the oath of allegiance modified by parliament in a more monarchical sense than was allowed by the terms employed in the reign of Elisabeth. After the revolution of 1688, the famous convention which formed itself into parliament, voted to retain the oath, but took good care to expunge everything in it which had the odor of passive obedience. The learned English author, Paley, who has commented at length on the terms and motives of the oath in its new form, proved that it justified even armed resistance in case the prince, by infirmity of mind or culpable action, should attack the liberties of the country. No doubt this interpretation, so conformable to the tone of the English mind, is of authority to day in the constitutional interpretation of the oath of allegiance.

—In France, under Napoleon III., the first opposition deputies elected after 1852, having refused the political oath, the senatus-consultum, of Feb. 17, 1858, prescribed that every candidate for deputy should first put on file the oath of fidelity to the emperor. More than one who had at first refused afterward decided to take the oath. (See OATH.)

MAURICE BLOCK.

ALLIANCE

ALLIANCE. The nation being but the family enlarged, what is applicable to the one may nearly always be applied to the other, with a few modifications. We shall discover, therefore, in the development of the relations between individuals, the history and origin of the international relations called political alliances.

—They have both been subjected to the action of time. They have been modified, transformed, and complicated, keeping pace with the evolution of humanity and the progress of society; but in every epoch we discover, as their essential bases, the constituent principles of the earliest human society. Affinities of blood, the power of passion, community of interests; these are the forces which in all ages have brought individuals, as well as nations, together. We shall adopt these three great divisions in our study of political alliances, keeping always in view the subdivisions which each of them admits of, for they correspond to three great phases in the history of all humanity, and, at the same time, show the permanency and the successive combinations of the constituent principles of which we have just spoken.

—Affinity of blood was the formative principle of the first human groups; solidarity of interests has an ever increasing tendency to govern in the making of modern alliances; and yet it is demonstrable that material interests not unfrequently played a part in the most remote antiquity, even where consanguinity and race exercised the most decisive influence, just as certain family alliances have stifled the voice of interest in recent times and in countries in which the principles of political economy have long been
Edition: current; Page: [63]
the guiding rules of diplomacy.

—There are three chief classes of political alliances: alliances of blood alliances of ideas or principles, and alliances of interest. There are conditions of existence and duration peculiar to each kind of alliance. Some are temporary, others of indeterminate duration; some have a special object in view, others are universal in their character. There are alliances for common defense, and alliances at once offensive and defensive. The peculiar character of these alliances, the diversities resulting from the governments of different form between which they are contracted, become apparent from the study of the treaties which create these unions, and which constitute the law of nations. Conventions are for nations what contracts are in the case of individuals.

—I. ALLIANCES OF BLOOD. There are blood alliances of peoples of common origin, and there are those due to the union of sovereigns. This double species of alliance predominated at the first grouping together of nomad tribes. The patriarchate which preceded royalty introduced family alliances. The laws of agglomeration are everywhere identical Families of a common stock come together and form a tribe; the tribes unite and form the nation; sovereigns, through their alliances, complete and extend the work begun by the heads of families and the members of the tribe. In the vedas, the bible, and the Scandinavian sagas, the illustrations of this are the same, and abound to such a degree that it would be superfluous to cite any. Although the alliance of blood and race becomes less important in international affairs as we advance into historic time, the part it plays is still great in the annals of nations. It was the ties of consanguinity that grouped the princes of Asia around the ravisher of Helen; it was the solidarity of race which gave avengers to the outraged Menelaus. We find in the immortal epic of Homer, on the narrow boundary between fable and primitive history, an example of the alliance of blood and race as it was developed during centuries of barbarism and ignorance.

—During the period of the great migrations of peoples, and the wars of conquest and religion, alliances of blood played a less important part. They governed, however, in the formation of those numberless hordes which rolled westward like so many avalanches, from the lofty plains of Asia and the icy fastnesses of northern Europe. When men thought to stem the torrent it was through alliances of blood that resistance to it was organized. Such alliances it was that brought order out of chaos, light out of darkness, and did away with violence, and established peace. Such alliances it was that gave Clotbilda to Clovis and Helen to Constantine. After the fruitless efforts of Charlemagne and his emulators to revive the empire of the west, the sovereignty of the world was divided among several. The age of feudalism was an age of violence, but it was also an age of grace and beauty. The souvenirs of chivalry show clearly enough what the influence of woman was during all that period. Her influence found expression and strength in marriage contracts. Through marriage all the great houses and lasting fortunes of modern times were founded. The fortune of war is variable. Defeat takes away what victory gave; but much is handed down which survives the reverses of war. The ties of blood resist the trials of adversity. While conquerors disappear like brilliant meteors, fortunes which last for centuries attest the force and vitality of family alliances. It was by these latter that the French monarchy was established. The fruits of the greater part of French conquests have been taken away from France. The dowries of French queens have remained. The house of Bourbon, whose destiny has been so closely allied to that of France, owed its greatness to the skill with which its alliances were formed more than to anything else. These verses inspired by the matrimonial successes of the house of Austria are well known: Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria, nube.

—We might say the same of the house of Savoy, which owes six or seven centuries of constant aggrandizement to its continued formation of useful alliances. We have said enough to describe the classes of alliances with which we are here concerned. To show what was their influence in peace and war would be to rewrite all history. We will, therefore, add but two examples to those already cited. The union of the house of France with that of Spain, ending in the war of succession under Louis XIV., and which gave rise to English mistrust under Louis Philippe, is one of those historical episodes in which the inconveniences and advantages of family alliances are strikingly shown. Formerly, in the organization of the ";Holy Roman Empire of the German nation,"; of the Germanic Confederation, and latterly of the German Empire, we find a no less striking instance of race alliances.

—The motive cause of family alliances is almost always the ambition of sovereigns, the instinct of conquest, or the desire of political preponderance. They are, therefore, most frequently aggressive. Alliances of race, on the contrary, are generally defensive. They are formed for the protection of interests, which would be imperiled by isolation from other interests. The menaces of Persia gave rise to the amphictyonic league. The gigantic development of the Russian empire, and the formation of France into a powerful unit, gave birth to the diet of Frankfort, which led to the complete unification of Germany.

—II. ALLIANCES OF IDEAS OR PRINCIPLES. We do not wish to conceal the vagueness and insufficiency of this caption, yet we have been unable to find a title more applicable to an alliance which is neither an alliance of race, of family, nor of interest.

—Hatred, vengeance, gratitude, friendship, ambition, faith, are feelings, passions, ideas, which have more than once determined peoples and sovereigns to contract alliances. It often happens that an idea is complicated with interests or with affinities of blood. We must not hope for strict unity in a subject which by its nature is complex and indeterminate.

—One of the
Edition: current; Page: [64]
most evident results of civilization is the substitution of interest for passion, in the management of human affairs. We must go far back in history to find an example of a people forming an alliance for objects of vengeance or hatred. Ambition itself scarcely ever avows its object now, and princes most greedy of glory disguise their passion under the mask of the general good. This was not always the case: The profound impression made by the invasions of the barbarians and the memory of the violence which prevailed under the territorial and political constitution of the world at the fall of the Roman empire, long sanctioned, among princes and nations, conventions regulating the most criminal projects, without scruple and without disguise. Antiquity had nothing similar to offer. Was not piracy the professed object of the alliance between the Barbary States? And when the Norman barons made a league with William to invade England, did they not stipulate beforehand the conditions of their assistance and the amount of booty they would demand in case of success? The hatreds and violence of the middle ages went as far as the formation of sacrilegious alliances. We can scarcely imagine the magnitude of the scandal, caused by the cross and the crescent fighting in the waters of Lepanto on the same side and for the same object. We are constrained to call attention to this scandal because it was an exceptional fact in flagrant contradiction with the customs and passions of the age. Faith, the religious sentiment, was really the ruling passion in politics until men's material interests began to rule supreme. From the schism of Arius to the peace of Utrecht, and the treaty of Westphalia, the question of religion occupies so large a place in all intervening conventions that diplomacy was saturated so to speak with theology.

—In the name of the Holy Trinity, and under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost international acts were drawn up. We need not add that it became necessary for religious formulæ to cover interests of another nature. However, there is an event among the most important of history in which alliances of religion appeared in all their purity, the event of the crusades. The crusades were followed by consequences unforeseen by their promoters, but faith was in the majority of cases the sincere and only motive of the crusaders. Side by side with this great fact are others of less importance which ought to be ranged in the same category; the alliance against the Albigenses and that of the leaguers with Spain; but, in both cases, the religious principle in which the alliance had its origin was combined with political elements which did not permit complete assimilation.

—The alliance of the United Provinces with the house of Orange, and the alliance of the Protestants of Germany with Gustavus Adolphus were essentially religious. They bore within them no doubt, the germs of political changes, which they were destined to bring about in Europe, but this can not detract from the purity of their origin. Religious sentiment will, perhaps, never again tower above material and political interests to such a degree.

—Political principles have not been without influence on alliances. We may cite among others those which were based upon the ultra conservative principles of the Holy Alliance to which we devote a special article. Unity of liberal ideas has drawn France and England together, and, in conformity to a law, the effects of which are frequently visible in nature, that contraries attract, we have seen the Russia of Nicholas I. manifest a weakness for the American republic. Alliances based upon political ideas are not more numerous because men have less inclination to argument or reasoning than to sentiments or interest.

—III. ALLIANCES OF INTEREST. The policy of interest prevails everywhere. If, therefore, we were to take up at random the alliances concluded since the beginning of this century, we should find that they are all connected either with a material or a political interest; but we have a more serious object in view. The present must be explained by the past. So long as nations were under the tutelage of princes, that is in their minority, so to speak, the will of the sovereign decided the fate of the nation. The country had no policy but that of the prince's ambition, it had no interests but those of his dignity and his dynasty. We must go rather far back in the annals of monarchy to find treaties of commerce and international conventions in which the least thought is given to the economical principles which rule the modern world. Commercial enterprises and industrial undertakings were then so many monopolies. Some princes might be named to whom agriculture, commerce, and industry are indebted for valuable encouragement, but the distance is great between this and an alliance of interest, such as we understand by the term to-day. We must not, therefore, look for alliances based on commercial interests, except in a few small states in which the commerce of the ancient world had become centralized, until we reach modern times We are not yet cured of the prejudice which causes us to put the glory of arms and military greatness above all other. We should not be astonished, therefore, at the small account which has been made of industrial nations for so long a time by warlike peoples. Fidelity to engagements entered into with them was not considered necessary. Such nations were held in regard only in so far as they were feared by or useful to others. Industrial states were among nations what the Jew is yet in certain countries. Therefore, guided by their instinct and enlightened by experience they substituted the foundation of colonies for foreign alliances which could offer them no guarantee of reciprocity. Before the discovery of the route around the Cape the great highway of the world's commerce was the one which the steam engine has reopened and which has now been so much shortened by the cutting of the Isthmus of Suez. The products of India and the East arrived at the
Edition: current; Page: [65]
African coast and there awaited buyers from Europe. Hence along the coasts, the establishment of the flourishing emporiums of Tyre. Carthage, and of so many others. Between these states there was the closest of alliances, identity of origin and a permanent community of interests. On the opposite shore of the great lake, a similar work had been accomplished by the Phænicians and the Phoceans. The merchant marine had there its stations, and commerce had its centers from the Greek archipelago to Bayonue. Heavy interests and formidable powers sprang up there with which the proudest monarchies of Europe had to reckon, the Sultan as well as other Asiatic potentates. The alliances concluded by Venice and Genoa are those in which commercial interests were most strikingly represented. The commercial and industrial development of Flanders, Holland and Great Britain succeeded Mediterranean prosperity. Commerce had changed its route. It had increased. Up to this time the world had been indebted to it for great cities, it was not to form great nations.

—It is from this epoch that economic questions really take a place in the public law of Europe. In the treaties of Charles V. there are stipulations in favor of the good cities of Bruges and Ghent. Industrial states have greater need of independence and security than any others. Alliances of interest reached their full importance only when these interests themselves were admitted and represented in international conventions on a footing of equality.

—Our own generation will witness the solution of the problem. Navigation, protection, exchanges, so long forgotten or merely implied, are prominently mentioned now at the head of every treaty. And not only have material interests become the main foundation of all alliances, but no other alliances are possible. There is an explanation of this phenomenon which leads us to hope that it will be an enduring one. The preponderance of material interests keeps pace everywhere with liberty and the progress of civilization. It substitutes loyalty and truth for violence and cunning; what all want takes the place of a single will. Liberty displaces servitude and democracy enters into the possession of its rights.

—To believe in this upward course of humanity is to believe in the system of alliances born and destined to develop with it. We have seen by what a logical chain of events this system came to be substituted for the systems which preceded it, but its superiority over them consists in its satisfying man's multifarious wants. It results from this that alliances of interest take part in all the complications of modern life, and that they are never more important than when they compromise with the prejudices of race or with religious sentiment. This new law of international conventions destroys nothing; it transforms the past, it assimilates and absorbs it. It will be the lasting honor of Switzerland to have pointed out by its example, before all other peoples, the solution of the question. No matter how noble or how lofty the problem, it was interest that united together the old cantons, and this same interest has been so broadly understood, so wisely nursed that through the most violent European crises, in the midst of perils of every kind, it has held together to our day in a close and prosperous union three races, three languages and religions which were everywhere else at war—Another nation which may be cited as the most marvelous example of prosperity due to an alliance of interest is the American Union. If the alliance of the northern and southern states was imperiled by the war of secession, it was because the republic had inherited from the past a legacy irreconcilable with the economic laws and morals of the future—slavery. There is a lesson to be learned from the fearful crisis through which the Union passed. It is this that the sanction of justice and morality is needed in alliances of interest more than in any other.

—IV. LAW OF NATIONS Like all international relations alliances are governed by the law of nations. Accepting the definition of authors, who see in states moral persons, we may compare treaties between states to contracts between individuals.

—The acknowledged necessity of waging war under certain circumstances has established a two-fold relation among nations: 1st. A relation to the power with which they form an alliance. 2nd. Toward the power against which they employ their forces. Alliances bind the contracting parties to make war in common against third powers, or to furnish aid as auxiliaries to one of the principal belligerents. They are offensive or defensive according to the circumstances which determine them. In most cases offensive alliances are temporary and special, for they have a special and determinate aim. This attained they cease to nave any raison d'être. Two nations may, however, unite their destinies for a purpose so complex and lasting that their alliance would lose the ordinary character of an offensive alliance. France and Spain afford us an example of these exceptions in the treaties of 1761 and 1796.

—Defensive alliances have a character of permanence and generality in keeping with the object they have in view. Side by side with the full and complete alliance we may mention the simple subsidy treaty by which a state enters into no other obligation than to loan a body of its troops to another power which is to pay them. Besides the many examples furnished by antiquity and the middle ages we know how frequently during the wars of the empire, England bound herself by subsidy treaties with the continental powers; and we may add here, that this species of contract has often served as a pretext for more general and intimate alliances.

—Treaties of alliance provide for the cases in which the aid of the contracting parties is to be invoked and the measure of their participation. When the contingencies provided for have happened, it has first of all to be decided whether the casus fæderis exists, that is to say whether the parties to the treaty are in the position contemplated by it. It often happens
Edition: current; Page: [66]
that when the time has come to carry out the terms of the treaty, one of the powers recedes from the fulfillment of its obligations. We do not wish to recount the almost infinite number of pretexts which bad faith has been able to suggest under such circumstances. It has sometimes happened that a treaty of alliance left unexecuted has become a cause of war. The difficulties are still more numerous in carrying out the conditions of certain treaties, in regulating the sacrifices made or the advantages gained. Here, again, we find in Heffter a confirmation of the position we have taken. He says, paragraph 116: ";In such cases the rule of partnership has to be followed, in accordance with which the profits and losses fall to each party in proportion to the amount he has invested in the business. Have we not here the laws of common morality, and the rules of private business? We find the same doctrine on this matter in Wheaton's Elements of International Law, vol. I., p. 259, etc. Although it is considered almost impossible to specify all the cases in which the refusal of aid may be proper before the commencement of war, and to foresee all the disputes which may follow the conclusion of peace, Martens has noted four cases in which an alliance may be broken, even during the course of a common war: 1st. Cases of necessity. 2nd. Cases in which an ally was the first to break faith with his ally. 3rd. When the object of the alliance can no longer be attained. 4th. When the ally refuses peace offered on proper terms. We are very far from wishing to approve the opinion of Martens. As to conventions concerning subsidies and auxiliaries we shall limit ourselves to a few essential generalities. Most frequently after fixing the number and conditions of the first contingent they provide for the additions which may become necessary. They reserve the civil rights in their own country of the men who go to serve on a foreign soil and under a foreign flag. They stipulate for the reward as compensation which shall follow success or defeat. They establish the differences existing between the ally and the auxiliary, between the auxiliary and the power which simply furnishes a subsidy. These differences impose restrictions on the rights of war. An anterior treaty may engage a nation to assist another in an anticipated war, without the nation which fulfills this engagement being considered in a state of hostility with the power against which it bears arms involuntarily and accidentally.

L. LEGAULT.

ALLIANCE

ALLIANCE, the Holy. Among the alliances of modern times, the holy alliance, which was entered into at Paris, Sept. 14-26, 1815, by the emperor of Russia, Alexander I., the emperor of Austria, Francis I., and the king of Prussia, William III., has a special claim to our consideration, because it is one of the most remarkable attempts to announce a principle of government the adoption and carrying out of which was expected to secure, forever thereafter, the peace of Europe, and justice and prosperity to the nations of Europe. The struggles carried on for a number of years, first against the French revolution and the principles of government which, originating in France, had spread throughout Europe, then against Napoleon's universal supremacy, had awakened a desire in the minds even of European sovereigns—who, leading in the uprising of Europe, had finally entered the gates of Paris as victors—for a principle which might successfully resist and overcome the principles of revolution. This revolution was the work of men. The eastern monarchs, therefore, appealed to God as their only helper. The human laws by which the state was governed, were to be invigorated and purified by the moral precepts of a divine rule, and the rights of man were to be superseded by the authority of Christ.

—The emperor of Russia was the author of this scheme, and the moving spirit of this alliance. It is strange that this declaration of principles, touching a system of government essentially Christian in its nature, was substantially the work of Russian statecraft, and that the German sovereigns had hardly a greater share in it than that of approving and signing it. France, which was the first to embrace the ideas of the new era, was also first to announce her new polity. Russia, which was the most backward in its political ideas, attempted to renew, in opposition to the polity announced by the French, the polity of a by-gone age. Germany alone, placed between the two, did not yet dare to publish its own views to the world. The Germans took the matter under consideration, siding now with the one, and then with the other of these principles, but always with the reservation, that, if they should succeed in their intellectual endeavors, they would break the silence they had hitherto observed.

—All the states of Europe were invited to join the holy alliance. Although the alliance was expressly based on the Christian religion, and although its originators represented three different creeds—the Greek, Catholic, and Protestant—the pope, whose political power was more than any other, based on the authority of Christianity, was, strangely enough, left out. They probably understood, though not very clearly, that the principle underlying the alliance, would, if the pope was to join in it, assign the first place to him, and would, followed out to its ultimate consequences, establish the supremacy of the church over Christian governments. But this was not what they wanted. They, rather than submit to this danger, by inviting the pope to join them, were willing, by failing to invite him, to betray the weak side of this principle which they were ready to proclaim to the world as a new gospel. It was less strange that they failed to invite the Ottoman court, for it was not to be expected that the head of Islam should acknowledge Christianity as the only principle of his policy. Still, Russia, by excluding Turkey from the pale of European peace, had secured her freedom of action, so far as her schemes of
Edition: current; Page: [67]
conquest in the south were concerned, and might point to the Christian principle, which formed the basis of the holy alliance, while encouraging and protecting the Christian population of Turkey in their efforts to rid themselves of the yoke imposed on them by the Mohammedan government. All the governments which had been invited, joined the holy alliance. The Bourbon kings of France, and even the republic of Switzerland, joined it, the latter, however, giving her assent rather vaguely, in response to the invitation extended to her. England alone, whose political education was of a superior kind, refused to join it, but without proposing any new idea, or even stating that she was opposed to the principle of the holy alliance, in whose favor all European dynasties had declared themselves, and which the king of England personally approved. The objections England urged were simply of a technical nature. In the compact, the following principles were either expressly set forth, or were contained in it by necessary implication: 1. The unity of European Christendom as one family of nations. The allied sovereigns declare, (art. II.), that they consider themselves and their subjects "as members of the same Christian nation"; and their several governments "as three branches of one and the same family." This principle itself was not new. In the middle ages it was more universally recognized, and had become embodied in the two closely related institutions—the papacy and the empire. What was new in this declaration was the effort to revive this principle in the shape of a family alliance as distinguished from the system of the Roman empire of the middle ages, which shortly before had had a passing revival in the universal empire of Napoleon. And this effort was made after, and in spite of the lines which divided Christianity into opposing creeds, and in the face of the national animosities which, for centuries, had broken up the whole fabric of European government, and which had destroyed all thought of a community of interests calculated to sustain it. That thought was indeed alike productive of good results and in keeping with the requirements of the age. The unity of Europe and the essentially Christian character of European civilization are verities of the greatest importance, in their bearing alike on the organization and peace of all European governments and the development of mankind. 2. Then again, the fact that the alliance rose, in point of principle, above the denominational and political differences which divided the nations of European Christendom, was evidence of a noble spirit. The Christian European commonwealth was the principle which embraced all those differences with a spirit of conciliation. If we bear in mind how little in our days even this principle is realized, and the efforts that had been made since its first announcement, and are still made, to have the different Christian creeds recognized, and the diversity of political opinions tolerated, we shall have no difficulty in understanding, that the holy alliance seemed to the sovereigns who had entered into it, and, at the beginning, to nations, to possess, in point of principle, a surpassing wealth of wholesome truths, whose light was to break upon and spread throughout Europe. This was a truly modern principle. It was, not in a religious, but in a political sense, that the middle ages had shown this liberal spirit. The middle ages had tolerated the greatest diversity in the forms of government, while they had persecuted all departure from the orthodox faith as a heresy, and had interdicted communion of any kind with those of a different faith. Now these three sovereigns announced, in principle, freedom of conscience and a community of creed throughout Christendom. And it was the emperor of Russia, whose people, more than any other European nation, had been held captive by their creed, who took the lead in the announcement of so liberal a principle. Yet, the practical workings of the holy alliance did not at all correspond with its principle in the end. The subjection, in the several countries, of all those whose faith differed from the recognized creed, did not cease; and least of all in Russia, whose emperor had been principally instrumental in effecting the alliance. The Græco-Russian church never ceased to oppress other creeds, and tried to spread its dominion by both crafty and forcible measures. 3. The Christian religion was proclaimed as the moral principle which was to govern in the international conduct and comity of the several states, and the relation of the government to its subjects. The allied sovereigns declare, in the introduction to their manifesto, "their ardent conviction of the necessity requiring the reciprocal relation of the several powers to be based on the sublime truths which the holy religion of the Lord and Redeemer," (in the original: l'éternelle religion du Dieu sauceur), and they evince "in the most solemn manner, before all the world, their firm purpose to adopt both in the government of their states, and in their political relations with every other government, the precepts of this eternal creed as their sole guide—that is, the precepts of justice, of Christian love, and of peace, which are not simply applicable to private conduct, which should exercise a direct influence on the intentions of sovereign rulers and their conduct, because they are the only means of firmly establishing human institutions, and of removing their imperfections." Who doubts that a candid observance of the moral commandments of the Christian religion by both sovereigns and their people, as well as by individuals, would have a very wholesome effect; that, by this observance, an absolutely new era of ideal wealth and material prosperity would be inaugurated, the like of which the most vivid imagination and anticipation poets and prophets did not dare to attribute to Paradise Lost or the millennium. The announcement, by the most powerful sovereigns, of intentions and tendencies like these, was calculated to again awaken and strengthen the despairing or slumbering hopes of the people
Edition: current; Page: [68]
for an improvement in their public affairs. This announcement was in itself—for we believe that it was made in good faith—a deed of great moment. Yet even on this point these hopes were not realized, and politics in their actual state were carried on, in spite of that declaration of principles, in the old way. Their actions differed in so many instances and so strikingly from the intentions of these rulers, that the people could not help losing faith in their honesty of purpose. 4. The Christian religion, moreover, was proclaimed as the political principle which was to regulate and govern the whole system of public law. Just here the grave mistake in point of principle, in the policy of this confederation, one which subsequently provoked the distrust and hate of the people against the holy alliance and caused its final dissolution, was made. We can not, of course, censure the Russian emperor for having mixed up the principles of religion with those of politics, and mistaking the one for the other; for state and church were, in the Russian empire, not separated as distinctly as in the empires of civilized Europe. But the fact is still remarkable, that at that time the German and Romanic sovereigns alike overlooked a distinction which not alone the positive teachings of Christ, but also the primitive political and ecclesiastical institutions of their people had pointed out most emphatically. The greatest danger, however, lay in the manner in which the Christian religion was made the principle which was to govern the system of public law. Christ himself purposely and in opposition to other founders of creeds, never made any public declaration of principles touching the state or the forms of government or its laws. In spite of this, Christian rulers now undertook to base their polity on the positive authority of Christ. They openly declared Jesus Christ as the sole "sovereign of all Christendom to which they and their people belong, who was the only source of power,";11 —and they announced themselves as "representing his divine authority"; as being his viceroys on earth, as it were, commissioned to "govern in the different parts of the Christian world." If we consider, in addition, that this statement does not draw any distinction between God and Christ, it becomes quite evident that this principle of government is none other than that of theocracy, and that it is at the same time, that of absolutism, because God is, as he must be, conceived as the absolute ruler, and because, according to the above statement, His power is simply delegated to His viceroys for them to execute. Indeed, it was but the polity of Russia as it had come from the east. It might agree with the character of the släve, but it was impossible for the Teutonic people or the Romanic nations to submit to it. In the middle ages even, the Teutonic and Romanic nations alike were no longer held captive by the theocratic polity of the eastern nations. They were saved from it by the separation of church and state. The spirit of modern times above all had developed an opposition to theocracy as a form of government. The tendency of the age was too outspoken in favor of the principle that the state was a government of man, and that it was for the human mind to comprehend and determine its nature and proper functions. The absolute power of the kings in the seventieth century, and in a large measure in the eighteenth century, had, moreover, been a favored system of government. Rulers clothed with absolute power, destroyed the feudal powers of the "small lords";—they removed the checks and obstacles placed during the middle ages in the way of progress—they concentrated the power of government and paved, by the destruction of the institutions of the middle ages, the way for the advent of a new era. But no sooner had this work been accomplished than the people became opposed to the exercise of absolute power. The most formidable revolution the world ever saw, followed as a reaction against the spirit of absolutism which had prevailed until then. What reason had men to hope after all these violent agitations and changes characterizing a new era, that the standard bearing the principle of absolute government of a by-gone age, which had shown its weak sides in all these agitations and changes, might be raised again, and that the nations would gather around it in true loyalty? The unbiased could not help but see in this the spirit of reaction as opposed to the revolution. How was it possible to discover in this manner a principle on which the advancement and progressive growth of government and its institutions might be based in future? The extreme ardor of certain parties might be lavish in praise, whereas the instincts of the masses and the minds of the intelligent saw the dangers rather than the benefits which this spirit seemed to prophesy. 5. The promise of mutual aid in all cases, which the allied sovereigns held out to one another,12 was not calculated to remove the apprehensions caused by the manner in which the polity they intended to pursue was announced. On the contrary, the mutual guarantee of absolute sovereignty soon came to be considered the most practical feature and the very nature of the alliance. This being the case, the fears soon bore down all hopes, and the alliance grew more and more unpopular. The European nations had, in the wars of liberation, taken up arms against the absolute power of Napoleon, the greatest political genius of the age. Was it to be expected that they would now permanently and blindly submit to the absolute power of their
Edition: current; Page: [69]
rulers, without any guarantee, that the latter were willing to recognize the wants of the age, and to exercise their absolute power for the benefit of the people generally? And in case the people did not submit—in case they exercised their traditional or newly acquired privileges in checking the spirit of monarchical absolutism—in case they demanded some guarantee of good government, such as their generation might ask for—should every sort of tendency toward political freedom be checked or kept down by the force of arms to suit their absolute rulers? Questions of this sort were raised at once; and the events of the following fifteen years strengthened the belief that the alliance was bearing down with a heavy load on every tendency toward a more liberal development of European states. 6. In order to allay these fears some-what, another principle was announced—the patriarchal—that the sovereigns considered themselves, in relation to their subjects and armies, fathers of a family, (Art. 1, "se regardant envers leurs sujets et arméos comme pères de famille.") The allusion to the family relation and to paternal sentiments was to soften down whatever was offensive in the assertion of the principles of the absolute and divine power of kings. Not as slaves to their master, but as children to their father, should subjects look up to their rulers—another Russian idea. The Russian emperor is both revered like a god and loved like a father by his people. But while the patriarchal idea of government in Russia and China and among the eastern nations generally, is still, in a measure, a legitimate factor, the manly European nations have, for centuries past, outgrown its discipline. The educated and thoughtful European is no longer willing to look upon his relation to his ruler as being that of a minor, and can no longer expect his ruler to have the feelings of a father toward him. The European state has long since outgrown the artless views peculiar to family life, and the limitations which characterize the family, and is governed by the broad principles of public law. To the European mind, therefore, that declaration must have seemed like a going back to a primitive age. And likely as it was to respect and be gratified by the benevolence displayed in the paternal sentiments of the sovereign, it was still opposed to a principle which, as was evident, was but a fiction. I have reviewed the principles of the holy alliance critically and somewhat in detail, because it has, in point of principle, still some effect on the present political state of Europe, and because it has an important bearing on the history of political ideas regarding the constitution of the state. Yet, the confederation itself was broken up by the spirit of the age, which it was expected to govern and control. The opposing tendencies, in point of principle, among the sovereign powers themselves, were first in making themselves felt, both at and after the congress of Troppau, in 1820, and subsequently in a more marked manner in the Greek question, in 1827. The July revolution of 1830 caused a wide breach between the parties to the alliance. In its opposition to the French revolution, and even to the Belgian uprising, the alliance showed its utter weakness. It did not dare, in all cases, to furnish the mutual aid and assistance it had promised and to defend its views by force of arms. The formation of the Prussian diet in 1847, the European uprising in 1848, the re-establishment of the Napoleonic dynasty in 1850, the war, finally, of Russia with Turkey and the eastern powers in 1854-6, gave the finishing stroke to the complete dissolution of a confederation whose chief significance lay in its principles, and whose political ideas were not likely to minister successfully to the political wants of the age.

MAX. EBERHARDT, Tr.
J. C. BLUNTSCHLI.

ALLOYAGE

ALLOYAGE. Gold and silver coins are never made of absolutely pure metal. Precious metals, when extracted from the earth, are nearly always found mixed to a greater or lesser extent with other metals, from which it is often difficult or too expensive to separate them entirely, yet it has been deemed necessary always to add to gold and silver a certain proportion of some commoner metal, such as copper, in order to increase their hardness and better fit them to stand wear and tear. This is called alloyage.

—Alloyage should be in a fixed proportion, for instance, one-ninth part. But the same proportion is not adopted everywhere, although all nations are tending more and more to the adoption of the same proportion.

CH. C.

ALMANACH DE GOTHA

ALMANACH DE GOTHA. This publication has acquired a position apart, in the political world. On this account the following data will not be without interest. The first idea of this almanach is due to Wilhelm von Rotberg (died in 1795, minister of state). He had printed under the title: "Almanach, necessary for 1763," a volume on the model of the etrénnes, (Christmas presents), then published in Paris. Beginning with the following year, the almanach grew under the hands of its new editor, Em. Ch Klüpfel, who had lived at Paris from 1747 to 1750, and who died in 1776, vice-president of the superior consistory of Gotha. Klüpfel was the first to insert the names of European sovereigns, much more numerous then than in our day. He also included, though at first only in extracts, the genealogical tables which have been so often consulted. The Almanach of Gotha therefore dates from the year 1764. The centennial anniversary of its first publication was, however, celebrated in 1863. The German edition, Gothaischer Hof Kalendar, did not appear until 1765. In this year the names of all the living members of princely families were given for the first time. Instructive or simply amusing notices on the most varied subjects were inserted in it. Toward the end of the last century events took such a serious turn that the amusing part of the almanach was dropped and the place that it occupied given to historical and statistical information.
Edition: current; Page: [70]
In 1794, Frederick Schlichtegroll, who died in 1822, director of the academy of sciences, (Munich,) added the chronik In 1802 the names of ambassadors or envoys were added; in 1824 the personnel of ministries and higher departments, and, soon after, the consuls and other functionaries.

—Under Napoleon I. the Almanach of Gotha had to suffer on account of the tenacity with which it adhered to the ancient order of things. Its publication even suffered a temporary suspension.

—The two editions, French and German, are almost identical. The plan followed in the first two parts dates from 1815, that of the third from 1824. In 1768 engravings were added to the text. There was a great variety of them at first, but since the end of the last century only portraits are given.

—Although the Almanach de Gotha is the property of an individual house, (Justus Perthes at Gotha since 1816), it is almost considered as the official almanach of reigning princes and the higher nobility. It enjoys also the reputation of an authority for statistical data. These are always drawn from official or authentic sources. The number and extent of these data so increased from year to year that an enlargement of the volume was found necessary in 1870.

M. BLOCK.

ALSACE-LORRAINE

ALSACE-LORRAINE. A country separated from France by the war of 187-1 and made a part of the German confederation, or more correctly of the German empire. It is not our purpose to write a history of this country or to relate by what combination of circumstances it ceased to be French. Neither is it our design to risk conjecture as to its future fortune. Our task is simply to detail actual facts. Alsace-Lorraine was not demanded by the German government as a territory formerly taken away from Germany, nor as a province containing a German population, but "as the key of the house, la clef de la maison." It was as a bulwark against wars of revenge or reconquest that Alsace-Lorraine was annexed to the German empire, such at least is the pretense made.

—The country was ceded, in virtue of the preliminaries of peace Feb. 26, 1871, confirmed by the treaty of peace signed at Frankfort May 10, 1871, ratified by the law of May 18, following. Bulletin des Lois, 1871, 1, p. 117.

—Article 2 of this treaty is thus drawn up: "French subjects born in the ceded territories, and now actually domiciled there, who may wish to preserve their French nationality shall have, by virtue of a preliminary declaration to that effect made to the competent authority, the power until Oct. 1, 1872, of transferring their domicile to France, and fixing it there and this right shall not be done away with, by the laws relating to military service; in which case their quality of French citizens will be maintained.

—They shall be at liberty to retain their real estate in the territory ceded to Germany."

—It is not the declaration of his choice which determines the nationality to which the Alsacian or the native of Lorraine henceforth belongs, but his place of domicile. It was given to be understood that the person who should elect in favor of France but who should be found domiciled in Alsace-Lorraine after Oct. 1, 1872, should be considered a German, notwithstanding his declaration of choice which should be considered as null and void.

—For natives of Alsace-Lorraine outside of Europe the period of choice was extended to Oct. 1, 1873, by the additional convention of Dec. 2, 1871.

—The present position of Alsace-Lorraine in the German empire was fixed by a law passed by the reichsrath, June 3, 1871. The following is the text:—Art. 1. "The territory of Alsace and Lorraine ceded by France, according to the terms of article 1, of the preliminaries of peace, is united forever to the German empire.

—Art. 2. "The constitution of the German empire shall go into force in Alsace-Lorraine on Jan. 1, 1873. Some parts of the constitution may be put in force before that date, by decree of the emperor with the consent of the federal council. The modifications and additions to the constitution must be approved by the reichstag.—[Art. 3, of the constitution comes into force from the present date, (this article 3 confers German nationality on the inhabitants of the newly annexed territories).]—Art. 3. "Executive power in Alsace-Lorraine belongs to the emperor. Until the constitution goes into force, the emperor must have the assent of the federal council in legislative matters, and when it shall be a question of making loans or furnishing guarantees involving the empire, that of the reichstag. Annual reports on the administration of the provinces shall be presented to the reichstag. After the constitution goes into force, this assembly will equally take cognizance of matters, which in the confederated states are not within its jurisdiction.

—Art. 4. "The decrees and ordinances of the emperor shall be counter-signed by the chancellor, who shall thus assume responsibility for them."

—Thus the countries detached from France have not been distributed among the different German states. They form a unity, a special state, a member of the German confederation. The reasons for this action were stated by Prince Bismarck, before the reichstag, June 3, 1871, in the following words: "One question alone has been seriously put: 'Shall Alsace-Lorraine be annexed to Prussia, or shall it become a part of the empire directly?' From the beginning, I have favored the latter alternative, first of all in order not to mix questions of dynasty with political questions; and besides because I see that the inhabitants of Alsace will adopt more readily the German than the Prussian name During the two centuries that the Alsacians have belonged to France, they, like true Germans, have preserved a good share of particularism, and it is on this, to my thinking, we ought to build, doing the opposite of what was done in analogous circumstances in North Germany. Our mission is first of all to strengthen this particularism.

—The more the inhabitants of Alsace shall feel themselves to be Alsacians, the more they will differ from the French. As soon as they feel
Edition: current; Page: [71]
they are Alsacians they are too logical not to feel that they are also Germans. In consequence of artifices, I might indeed say intrigues, of the French government, the name of Prussian is detested in France, much more than that of German.

—It is an old tradition in the country, not to recognize the Prussians as Germans, to flatter the Germans as such, and to represent them as under the protection of France, vis-à-vis of Prussia. In this way it has come to pass that the Prussian name has a hateful sound in French ears, and whenever it is desired to say anything evil of us it is said of the Prussian government or the Prussians, while they speak of the Germans whenever they wish to say anything good. It is not to be doubted that this policy of bringing suspicion on Prussia, which has been continued by France for a whole generation has left its traces in Alsace. Besides, as I have already said, it is easier for the Alsacians to find a new position as Germans than to adopt the Prussian name. This reason alone would be sufficient for me. As to what must be done later in the interest of the empire and of Alsace I think it will be necessary first of all to hear what the people of Alsace and Lorraine have to say for themselves ***."

—Alsace-Lorraine has representatives in the bundesrath and in the reichstag since 1873, but it has not yet been announced when this country shall have a special constitution. In the meanwhile the public powers of the empire, the emperor, and the reichstag and bundesrath will manage, for Alsace-Lorraine, not only the affairs which these powers manage for the whole empire, but also those which remain within the competency of the government of each German state. In other words, Alsace-Lorraine is provisionally without a government of its own: the functions which would devolve on a special government to perform are exercised by that of the empire.13

—The administration of the country was organized by the law of December, 1871. It is placed under the direction of an upper president, a title given in Prussia to the governors of such provinces as embrace several departments. The upper president who is assisted by the imperial council of Alsace-Lorraine, (council of state), resides at Strassburg as does also one of the three prefects (or rather presidents of departments) the prefect of lower Alsace. The prefect of upper Alsace is at Colmar, the prefect of German Lorraine at Metz. The prefects are assisted by administrative councils, composed of the higher functionaries. The departments are divided into circuits answering in some sort to the former arrondissements, but with different and smaller boundaries. At the head of each circuit, there is a director who has provisionally the powers of a sub-prefect. Contrary to French usage, these circuits can have their budgets. They are recognized civil entities. Civil tribunals of first resort are established at Metz, Sarreguemines, Strassburg, Saverne, Colmar, Müthouse. The court of appeal sits at Colmar. In commercial suits appeal may be made to the federal supreme court (third resort) at Leipsig. The German commercial and penal codes are in force side by side with the civil code of France. Many provisions of previous administrative law are retained. All laws which have not been expressly repealed are still in force, i.e., no law is implicitly repealed by the change of sovereignty, the financial system has been scarcely touched. Direct taxes are collected as before, but the monopoly of tobacco is suppressed. The reasons for the law of June 3, 1871, shows that this suppression is equal to a reduction of taxes amounting to almost 5 fr. (50c.) per head. Primary instruction, and military service have been introduced. Both are obligatory.

—Alsace Lorraine has an area of 5,580 English square miles, and a population December, 1875, of 1,531,804. If we are to believe the Almanach of Gotha, which does not cite its authority, there were, in 1872, 254,000 Frenchmen and 1,345,000 Germans in the country, but we can not discover that these figures are confirmed.

AMBASSADOR

AMBASSADOR. The article "Diplomatic Agent" in this work may be supplemented by a few striking passages which we here quote, from a speech of Prince Bismarck at Berlin Nov. 16, 1871, in the German reichstag.—"An ambassador does not deserve a higher salary by reason of his title, for ambassador is only a title. If you put a colonel or a general at the head of a brigade, he becomes a brigadier and must always be ready to do a brigadier's duty. If you maintain your ambassador at a great court in a shabby manner, his expenses will not, perhaps, necessarily exceed those of a minister plenipotentiary by more than from one thousand to three thousand thalers. This sum will suffice to cover the outlay imposed on him by the custom prevalent in most countries in accordance with which sovereigns accept, on certain occasions, the invitations of ambassadors; and
Edition: current; Page: [72]
it is this custom of giving great entertainments that causes the increased outlay of which I have spoken. The honor which the visit of the sovereign confers on the house he enters has this effect: it makes the position of the representative in the eyes of the sovereign's subjects correspond with the dignity of the state he represents. But there is no question of that in the increase of salary which you have proposed.

—Why then, we may be asked, confer the title of ambassador at all? I answer, because of the hierarchy of political agents. A difference is made between the members of the diplomatic corps, an unjust one, no doubt, but one which is nevertheless generally admitted. Thus if a minister of foreign affairs be in conference with a minister plenipotentiary, at the moment that an ambassador is announced, he thinks it his duty to break off the conference at once and receive the ambassador. A minister plenipotentiary may have waited an hour perhaps in the antechamber of the minister of foreign affairs. At the moment he is about to enter an ambassador arrives, and the usage of most courts, so far as I know, is to receive the latter; the minister will have to wait a long time more, and perchance he may not be received at all that day. The result is mortification and collisions which may be avoided by a mere change of title. A minister plenipotentiary conscious of his own dignity will not endure such treatment, and, for my part, I found myself in a situation to resent it successfully but not without bringing on a coolness out of all proportion with the importance of the matter. Moreover, such resistance can not be made without placing persons in a position which almost touches the limits of what is allowed to the representative official of a great nation. The object can be obtained by conferring on the agent the title of ambassador, which thus becomes, through the marks of honor which it brings him, a bit of economy rather than a cause of expense. The prerogatives belonging to the title of ambassador may be considered as a full equivalent for a few thousand thalers.

—I have read occasionally in the public papers (and the preceding speaker has alluded to the point) that some persons recognize the danger of the privilege belonging to ambassadors of conferring directly with the sovereign. This is founded on error. An ambassador has no more access to a sovereign than any other minister plenipotentiary, and he can in no way pretend to have the right to treat with a monarch directly and without the intervention of the monarch's ministers."

M. BLOCK.

AMBITION

AMBITION, Political. Vanity (in the sense here used) is the desire of honor and distinction; ambition is the desire of power. The two are essentially political passions. The second plays a most important part in society. If men were completely devoid of egotism, the love of justice and the public good would suffice to give life to the body politic; but, as a matter of fact, power is sought for and held on to, because men love it. Ambition is the motor, secret or avowed, of the great majority of those who govern states. It is useful, because it calls forth men; it is necessary, because it lends force to those who govern and consequently to governments; it may be even glorious, if noble in its aims, pure in its means, and seconded by great intellectual power. It is more in place in free than in absolute states. Richelieu and Colbert, under the ancient monarchy of France, were useful, if ambitious men. They might have been dangerous and even pernicious citizens, if they had not risen to the highest rank. It is in free states alone that ambition can have a definite, specific aim, test its powers, and adapt itself to circumstances and to men. It is the chief motive power in free states, as vanity, under the name of honor, is in absolute monarchies.

—In speaking of political ambition, we need not always have a Marius, a Sylla, or a Julius Cæsar in view. These names fill the minds of men as they do, because they are very great names; but the most absolute monarchies have their ambitious men as they have their civil wars. It was not liberty that made the overthrow of the Roman republic easy; it was the weakening of authority. It is sometimes thought that liberty and authority are antagonistic, and that the one increases only to the detriment of the other. There could be no greater mistake. An authority powerfully constituted but restrained within just limits and a generous liberty may co-exist in the same state. This is the indispensable condition of order and stability. There is no liberty without a powerful authority to secure its continuance, nor can there be a firm, lasting and beneficent authority without liberty. These conditions are required by the nature of man, which has equal need of freedom and limitation. Liberty permits ambition to act for good, and authority prevents its passing the limits set to guard the common weal. An ambitious man subject to a master has but two roads to success, revolt and flattery. An ambitious man in a free state may reach his end by the éclat of his talents or his virtues. He journeys under a clear sky, and the more lofty his soul the greater are his chances of success.

—It was a saying of the Fourier school, that everything is good in its place. This is particularly true of ambition, but it needs to be directed by a right conscience, and an honest and firm mind. Ambition is almost always given to excess, and consequently to violence. The vehemence of its desires deceives it as to the legitimacy of its objects and its means. It then becomes immoral through blindness and passion; and, as it is attended with pride, far from confessing its errors it invents a false morality to justify and exalt them. The author of the First Alcibiades, who perhaps was Plato, treats this subject with much force and truth. He shows that it is a vulgar ambition to desire power when one is not sure of exercising it in the interest of humanity, and a criminal ambition to acquire dominion through injustice. Morality enlightened by history, pronounces this judgment on ambition and
Edition: current; Page: [73]
ambitious men: No legitimate ambition can justify or excuse the use of illegitimate means. No ambition is legitimate which has not sufficient force at its command. It is not success that justifies ambition; it is the service rendered by it. The common herd who always approve and applaud force are slaves of success heart and soul. They are the devoted and patient servants of every ambitious person who succeeds. Success has in itself no moral grandeur. It is a force, but it is not, as has been said, an evidence of force. It may attend corruption and weakness. The true criterion of a lofty and noble ambition is this: the employment of honorable means and of none other, the promotion of justice and the furtherance of the interests of the whole community, while furthering one's own.

JULES SIMON.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. (See CONSTITUTION.)

AMERICA

AMERICA. It is with the fall of the eastern empire, that is, with the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, that, according to most historians, the modern era opens.

—While acknowledging the share taken by the Byzantine emigration in the onward movement accomplished then in Europe, we think it is pre-eminently with the discovery of America (1492) that the modern era should be made to begin. By opening a broad career to the spirit of enterprise and adventure, by rousing old Europe to come and share the boundless wealth of a new continent, by opening new markets for commerce, by substituting, at least in part, the conquests of colonization for the barren conflicts of the past, the discovery of America could not but force Europe out of the bonds imposed upon it by the middle ages. It is in this that the explorations of Columbus and his successors are superior in civilizing influence to the crusades. From the struggle caused by the crusades, although these were born of a moral idea, civilization reaped little benefit, and the result of them is that a religious antagonism has been generated between the east and the west, the violence of which eight centuries have not been able to temper. America serves old Europe in a different way. She enriches and reinvigorates her. Every nation that sets foot on American soil doubles its power and influence. Without mentioning Spain, which owed to America its domination at one time in Europe, what would the annals of Portugal have been without the new continent? Shall we yet see this impulse in the line of progress which the old world received from America return whence it came; in other words, is Europe destined to sink into decadence and see the new world the torch-bearer of civilization? This thesis has been maintained, and without accepting its conclusion, we may admit that a grand future is reserved to the magnificent continent where generous nature seconds the efforts of the American states, north and south, a great number of which are distinguished for the energy and intelligence of their inhabitants.

—From a purely geographical point of view, the new world is naturally divided into North and South America, connected by the isthmus of Panama. Of the innumerable islands which belong to the new continent, two groups should be mentioned when speaking of the great geographical divisions of America. These are the arctic lands or the islands which extend north of the new continent, and the Antilles, which usage improperly designates the West Indies.

—According to the calculations of Humboldt, the surface of this part of the world, including the islands we have mentioned, reaches 38,233,594 square kilometres.

—America exhibits the peculiarity of having fewer inhabitants to the square mile than any part of the globe, and of having, at the same time, a greater number of different kinds of people than there are in any of the divisions of the old world. According to the ethnographical atlas of the globe, 438 languages are spoken there and more than 2,000 dialects.

—The people of the new world form two great divisions, the aborigines, and people of foreign origin. The latter comprise at present the great mass of the population of America and compose the dominant nations of the new world.

—The Spaniards, the English and their descendants, the people of African origin, the Portuguese, the Irish, peoples of foreign blood. After them in respect to numbers come the Germans and the French. The Dutch and Danes are still fewer in number. The Swedes must also be mentioned. They preponderate in the island of St. Bartholomew, and several millions of Basques and Italians who are settled principally in Uruguay and some of the eastern states of the Argentine Confederation. It is proper to state that North America belongs more particularly to the Saxon or Germanic race, and South America to the Latin race.

—The decrease of the aborigines is a fact shown by every day experience. They recede before Europeans, and the fragments of their race are found only where settlers have not yet penetrated or where they are few in number.

—Christianity extends its influence over the whole of the new world, from the arctic regions to Patagonia, and presents the following subdivisions: The Catholic church prevails in the empire of Brazil and all America which was formerly Spanish; the Episcopal or Anglican, the Presbyterian or reformed, and the Lutheran churches, with the Methodists, Quakers, and Baptists, to mention only the most numerous, are dominant in the United States and British America. The orthodox Greek church is established in the late Russian possessions. The Mosaic law is observed by a small number of persons living principally in the United States, the English, Dutch, and French Antilles and, in the Guianas, fetichism, in various forms, is found among the savage tribes.

—When the Spaniards discovered America, it presented every variety of government from the paternal despotism of the Incas to the absolute independence enjoyed by the members of the tribes still existing. It has been observed that government in almost all the indigenous nations of
Edition: current; Page: [74]
America appears under a mild form, which contrasts strangely with the despotism prevalent in Asia and Africa, even among nations the most polished. While the flourishing empire of Peru was governed by a theocratic despotism, and while we find a pontiff and an absolute king among the Muyscas, the government of the Natchez was theocratic, and that of the powerful Mexican empire resembled one of the feudal monarchies of the middle ages more than it did the despotic empires of Asia. Tlascala, Cholula and Huetxocingo, as well as that group of little states established on the eastern and northern coasts of Brazil, were republics.

—At present most of the indigenous nations of the new world are democratic republics, governed by a chief, sometimes elective and sometimes hereditary. Some of them banded together formed or still form confederations, such as the famous confederation of the five nations, the Sioux, the Arrapahoes, etc. The government of the Osages, the Kansas, the Pawnees, the Missouris, the Mohawks, and several other nations, is a species of republican oligarchy. That of the Araucanians presents a mixture of aristocracy and democracy. That of the Cherokees is an imitation of the internal administration of the United States, while that of the Otomakos and the Yaruros in the territory of Venezuela lead, so to speak, a family life with property in common. The American colonies, English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danish and Swedish have retained, with certain modifications, the administrative forms of their mother countries.

—The United States form a great federal state, in which each separate state governs itself, except that it has confided to a central authority, the federal government the management of everything touching the common defense, foreign polities, customs and postal service, etc. (See UNITED STATES.)

—The republican constitution of the American Union has served as a model to a host of states built on the ruins of the Spanish colonies. The constitutional monarchy of Brazil forms the only exception to this rule.

—From a political point of view, America may be divided into two great sections: independent and colonial America.

—Independent America comprises the United States, founded originally by English colonists; Mexico, a state formed in 1810 from nearly the whole vice-royalty of Mexico and a fraction of the captain generalship of Guatemala; the central American republics, made up of the captain generalship of Guatemala, less certain fractions of its territory, and divided since 1839 into five republics, Guatemala, San Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, (see these countries); the Colombian republic, formed of New Granada, Ecuador and Venezuela; the first two have arisen from the dismemberment of the vice-royalty of Santa-Fé, the last from the captain generalship of Caracas; the Peruvian republics, comprising the republic of Peru and that of Bolivia, both formed of the vice-royalty of Peru; Chili, formerly the captain generalship of Chili; the Argentine republic or confederation, formed by the greater part of the vice-royalty of LaPlata, Uruguay, formed of the eastern portion of the vice-royalty of LaPlata; Paraguay, having the same origin as the preceding, and whose founder was the celebrated Doctor Francia; the empire of Brazil, the republics of Hayti and San Domingo, which divide the island of San Domingo. Add to this enumeration the independent nationalities of the Araucanians, the Creeks, the Apaches, the Algonquins, the Esquimaux, which are the most important nations.

—Colonial America comprises British America, composed of the Dominion of Canada in North America, of Jamaica, the Barbadoes, Saint Christopher, Antigua in the Antilles, a part of Guiana; Demerara and some possessions of minor importance; Spanish America, composed of Cuba and Porto Rico; French America, comprising a part of Guiana, the islands of Martinique, Guadaloupe, St. Marie Galande, St. Pierre, and Miquelon; Dutch America, composed of a part of Guiana, the isles of St. Eustache, Saba, Cura8cedill;ao, etc.; Danish America, formed of the Greenland group, the isles of Santa Cruz, St. Thomas, and St. John in the Antilles; Russian America, Kodjak, Sitka, and the Aleutian islands; Swedish America, confined to the island of St. Bartholomew in the Antilles.

—A special article has been devoted to each American state and territory.

AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE

AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE; Its Growth, Decadence, and Causes of Decay. The building and use of ships were employments to which the founders of the North American colonies and then descendants subsequently, until within a very recent period, may be said to have taken to naturally; and from the middle of the seventeenth until the middle of the nineteenth century—a period of 200 years—they were the two industries whose competition England, with good cause, especially dreaded. In fact, within little more than twenty-five years after the settlement of New England, or in 1650, the English parliament, in full accord with the then spirit of the age, felt it necessary to enact a statute for the avowed purpose of protecting English shipping
Edition: current; Page: [75]
against the competition of the English plantations in America, which statute was reënacted or amended in the direction of further restriction in 1661, and again in 1663. By the statute of 1650 the export and import trade of the English colonies was restricted to English or colony built ships; but by the statute of 1663 nothing was allowed to be imported into a British plantation except in an English-built ship "where of the master and three-fourths of the crew are English."

—But, notwithstanding these restrictions, the business of ship-building and ship-using in the American colonies was one that would not stay restricted, but continued to grow in spite of all efforts of the mother country to the contrary. At the time of the breaking out of the American revolution and for long afterward there were more people in the northern part of New England—Maine and New Hampshire—engaged in ship-building and in navigation than there were in agriculture, and Massachusetts at the same time was estimated to have owned one vessel for every one hundred of its inhabitants. The enactment of arbitrary laws on the part of Great Britain to prevent her American colonists from freely participating in the carrying trade and commerce of the ocean was, however, a sore grievance, and ultimately, as is well known, constituted one of the prime causes of the American revolution. They were, furthermore, from the very first either openly or secretly resisted and evaded, and under their influence the colonists became a nation of law-breakers. Nine-tenths of their merchants were smugglers. One-quarter of all the signers of the declaration of independence were bred to commerce, to the command of ships and to contraband trade. Hancock, Trumbull, (Brother Jonathan), and Hamilton, were all known to be cognizant of contraband transactions, and approved of them. Hancock was the prince of contraband traders, and, with John Adams as his counsel, was appointed for trial before the admiralty court in Boston, at the exact hour of the shedding of blood at Lexington, in a suit for $500,000 penalties alleged to have been incurred by him as a smuggler. The pertinency of the introduction of these historical facts in this connection is to be found in the evidence they embody of the opinions entertained by the founders of the republic respecting the justice or expedience of laws arbitrarily enacted for the restriction of commerce and the freedom of trade. Men like Hancock, Trumbull and Hamilton, who were merchants before they became statesmen, had, as the result of personal experience, been led to feel that the government of Great Britain, in endeavoring through such laws to restrain the colonists from engaging freely in a department of otherwise law-full industry and from enjoying the fruits of their labors, contravened their natural rights, reaffirmed the principle of slavery and became their enemy. Every evasion of such statutes was, therefore, in their view, a blow in favor of liberty. Hence also the origin of that count in the indictment against the king of Great Britain embodied in the declaration of independence "of cutting off our trade with all parts of the world." It is interesting also to note, how, subsequent to the revolution, a determined effort was made by American statesmen, to incorporate the idea of free commerce and unrestricted trade with all nations as a part of the fundamental and permanent policy of the new republic. Thus, up to that time, treaties of commerce between nations had been little other than agreements to secure special and exclusive privileges to the contracting parties, and to antagonize as far as possible the commercial interests of all other countries. But in the treaty of commerce entered into between France and the United States, in 1778, the commissioners of the two nations—Franklin, Deane, Lee and Gerard—evidently determined to attempt to inaugurate a more generous policy and establish a precedent for freer and better commercial relations between different countries than had hitherto prevailed. It was accordingly agreed in the treaty in question to avoid "all those burdensome prejudices which are usually sources of debate, embarrassment and discontent," and to take as the "basis of their agreement the most perfect equality and reciprocity." And they further stated the principle which they had adopted as a guide in their negotiations to be that of "founding the advantages of commerce solely upon reciprocal utility and the just rules of free intercourse." The traditions and customs of Europe were, however, too strong to be at once broken down; and in the end the United States abandoned its efforts in behalf of a new commercial policy, and within a comparatively few years afterward enacted a commercial code as illiberal and narrow in many respects as any that had preceded it.

—Let us next briefly trace the experience of American shipping subsequent to the revolution. At the time of the formation of the constitution in 1789 the registered tonnage of the United States, by which is to be understood the tonnage engaged in foreign trade, was 123,893 tons. During the next succeeding eight years, or from 1789 to 1797, it increased 384 per cent., but this remarkable increase was exceptional, and was due to the almost universal state of war in Europe, which threw the carrying trade of the world in an equal degree into our hands. Between 1797 and 1807 the increase was 42 per cent., or from 507,777 tons to 848,307 tons. Between 1807 and 1837 there was no increase, but periods of decrease (as between 1811-14 and 1818-25), and again of partial recovery, so that in 1837 the amount of American registered tonnage was only 810,000 tons, or about 38,000 tons less than it was thirty years previously, or in 1807. Subsequent to 1837, the increase was again rapid; rising from 810,000 in that year to 1,241,000 in 1847, to 2,268,000 in 1857, and culminating with 2,496,000 tons in 1861, or at the period of the outbreak of the war. The maximum tonnage of the United States at any one time registered and enrolled, (or engaged in foreign and domestic trade), and in the fisheries was
Edition: current; Page: [76]
in 1861, namely, 5,539,813 tons. The tonnage of the world at that time, divided among the different nationalities, was also approximately as follows:

Tons.

Belonging to the United States...

5,539,813

Belonging to Great Britain and her dependencies

5,895,369

Belonging to all other nations...

5,800,767

The tonnage belonging to the United States in 1861 was therefore but a little smaller than that of Great Britain, and nearly as large as the entire tonnage of all maritime nations combined, with the exception of Great Britain. In respect to the international carrying trade of the world, the United States had more tonnage engaged than all other nations combined, exclusive of Great Britain.

—Another point of Great importance in this connection is, that from 1855 to 1860, the period when the American shipping interest attained its greatest prosperity, the tonnage of the United States engaged in foreign trade was more than 50 per cent. in excess of what would have been requisite to carry all the exports and the imports of the country; or, in other words, if American vessels had exclusively moved all our exports and all our imports form 1855 to 1860 there would have remained some 1,300,000 tons of American shipping to be otherwise accounted for in respect to business. But as the American vessels did not at that time exclusively carry all our imports and exports, and as fully 25 per cent. of the foreign trade of the United States was then done by foreign vessels, it follows that the tonnage of the United States in 1855-60, which was in excess of the immediate trade requirements of the country, was much more than 1,300,000 tons. This surplus was in the employment of foreigners and engaged in a trade with which the United States had no connection except as a carrier; and in this business, the ships employed, not unfrequently, did not return for years to their home ports. At the same time, the amount of American tonnage transferred by sale to foreigners was very considerable, and for the year 1855, amounted to 65,000 tons.

—Attention should also be here called to the circumstance that the remarkable results as above detailed were achieved at a time when the differences in the wages of seamen, and the cost of stores, rigging, etc., on American vessels in favor of their foreign competitors, was very marked, if not fully as great as at present. The explanation of this anomaly is that the crews of American vessels, although paid higher wages than the seamen of any other nationalities, were more efficient, consequently fewer men were needed, which reduced the cost and risk of navigation, and this last in turn reduced the cost of insurance, as compared with English ships, even in English companies. The Americans also very early introduced labor-saving machines and mechanism, as for managing the top-sails, handling and lifting the anchor, loading and unloading freights, which also largely dispensed with the necessity of manual labor. Vessels of the United States at the time under consideration were better modeled than vessels of foreign construction, and, being better modeled and better handled, they sailed faster, and as a general rule could make four voyages while the Englishman, under similar circumstances and with similar vessels, could make but three. American ship-owners, consequently, obtained more freight and often better prices—a sixteenth of a penny more per pound, for example, in cotton—and in English ports, other things being equal, English merchants preferred to ship in American rather than in British bottoms. In 1857, when the rebellion in India broke out and the British government found it necessary to dispatch troops and stores with the greatest promptitude, the vessels that were first chartered, at the highest prices, which were most relied upon and did the best service, were the magnificent American-built clippers at that time largely engaged in the India and China trade.

—The statistics of American shipping thus far presented have not discriminated between sailing vessels and steamers. But there is a point just here of no little importance as throwing light on what subsequently happened. It is this: British foreign steam shipping practically dates from 1838, when the Sirius and Great Western, the two pioneer vessels, crossed the Atlantic to New York. The increase in this department was at first very slow, and thirteen years later, or in 1851, the total British steam tonnage engaged in foreign trade was only 65,921 tons. The foreign steam shipping of the United States may be said to date from 1848, when it amounted to about 16,000 tons. For a number of years next subsequent its increase was so rapid that in 1851 the foreign steam tonnage of the United States and Great Britain were almost equal; that of the former being 62,392 tons, and that of the latter 65,920 tons. The prospect, therefore, at one time was that the United States, although late in the start in this new department of foreign shipping, must soon equal, if not overtake, her great commercial competitor, Great Britain. And after the year 1851 the American growth steadily continued down to the year 1855, when our aggregate steam tonnage engaged in foreign trade amounted to 115,000 tons. But from that time onward there was no more progress, but a retrograde movement; so that in 1862 the aggregate foreign steam commerce of the United States was less by 1,000 tons than it was in 1855. But even before the outbreak of the war "there were no ocean mail steamers, away from our own coasts, anywhere on the globe under the American flag, except, perhaps, on the route between New York and Havre, where two steamships may then have been in commission, which, however, were soon afterwards withdrawn. The two or three steamship companies which had been in existence in New York had either failed or abandoned the business; and the entire mail passenger and freight traffic between Great Britain and the United States, so far as this was carried on by steam, was controlled then (as it mainly is now) by British companies."

—The year
Edition: current; Page: [77]
1856 further marks a great natural division in the history of the entire foreign mercantile marine and ship-building industry of the United States. The record thus far has been substantially a record of a most remarkable progress and prosperity. The record hereafter is to be a record of decadence and disaster, which, considering the magnitude of the capital and interests involved, is almost without a parallel in the history of modern civilization.

—The decline in American ship-building and in the American carrying trade upon the ocean did not, as is popularly supposed, commence with the war, and was not occasioned by the depredations of the confederate cruisers. These agencies simply helped on a decadence that had previously commenced, and which probably would have progressed just as far as it now has had no war intervened. The first symptoms of this decadence appeared in 1856 in the falling off in the sales of American tonnage to foreigners; the reduction being from 65,000, in 1855, to 42,000 in 1856; to 26,000 in 1858, and to 17,000 in 1860. During the war, however, the transfers of American tonnage to foreign flags again increased very largely; and for the years 1862 to 1865 inclusive, amounted to the large aggregate of 824,652 tons, or to more than one-fourth of all the registered tonnage (the tonnage engaged in foreign trade) of the United States in 1860. But these transfers it is well understood were not in the nature of ordinary business, but for the sake of obtaining a more complete immunity from destruction upon the high seas than the United States at that time was able to afford. The year 1856 also marks the time when the growth of our foreign steamshipping was arrested and a retrograde movement inaugurated, so that, as before stated, our aggregate tonnage in this department was 1,000 tons less in 1862 than it was in 1855. The total tonnage of every description built in the United States also declined from 582,450 tons, in 1855, (the largest amount ever built in any one year) to 212,892 tons in 1860, a reduction of over 60 per cent. in five years. The year 1855-6 was also the period when American vessels carried the maximum percentage (75.2 per cent.) of the exports and imports of the United States. After 1856 this business steadily declined from 75.2 per cent. in 1856 to 73.7 per cent. in 1858; 66.5 per cent. in 1859, and 65.2 in 1861, the year of the outbreak of the war. Notwithstanding this, the records of the United States treasury department show that the aggregate of American tonnage engaged in foreign trade and the total aggregate of the entire mercantile marine of the United States were both greater in 1861 than at any former period. Whether it was at this latter date all profitably employed, as it certainly was at an earlier period, can not now be affirmed.

—What happened in the twenty years that elapsed between 1860-61 and 1880 is shown by the treasury statistical statement. Our aggregate tonnage of every description, registered and enrolled, sail and steam, employed upon the ocean, upon the lakes, upon our rivers and harbors, has declined from 5,539,813 tons in 1861 to 4,008,034 in 1880—a reduction of over 26 per cent.

—Our tonnage engaged in foreign trade has declined during the same period from 2,496,894 tons to 1,314,402 tons—a reduction of 47 per cent.

—The aggregate of tonnage of every description built in the United States in 1855 was 583,450; in 1861, 233,193 tons, and in 1880, 157,409 tons—a reduction of annual increment since 1855 of 73 per cent., and since 1861 of 32 per cent. How rapidly furthermore this former great branch of American industry is decaying may be also illustrated by the statement that the American tonnage built in 1880 was 35,622 less than 1879, and 78,095 tons less than in 1878. There was a falling off in the shipbuilding of the New England States during 1880 of 9,500 tons as compared with 1879, 44,012 tons as compared with 1878, and 105,123 as compared with 1875; while for our entire seaboard—Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific—the tonnage built in 1880 was 142,755 tons less than the product of 1875.

—But the changes which have taken place within the last twenty-five years in the ocean carrying trade of the United States constitute by far the most striking illustrations of the tremendous decadence and wreck which our foreign maritime commerce and commercial marine within that period experienced. During the whole period between 1855 and 1860 there was, as before noticed, at least a million and a half of American tonnage exclusively in foreign employ, "carrying cargoes from foreign ports to foreign ports for foreigners, to be used by foreigners, and in which business Americans had no direct interest but to receive in cash their freight money, to be sent home and added to the productive capital of the country." Of this great and profitable business a small proportion (in 1881) probably yet remains, but how much it is difficult to state with accuracy.

—Again, in 1856, out of the total value of all the exports from and of all the imports into the United States the American commercial marine transported 75.2 per cent. The record of the experience of the twenty-five years next succeeding is exhibited in the following table:

Percentage of the exports and imports of the United States carried in American vessels from 1556 to 1880 inclusive:

Years.

Per cent.

1856

75.2

1857

70.5

1859

69.9

1861

65.2

1863

41.4

1865

27.7

1867

33.9

1870

35.6

1872

28.5

1874

26.7

1876

25.9

1878

22.6

1880

17.4

Or to sum up in a few words, of the goods, wares and merchandise exported and imported into the United States during the fiscal year 1880, American vessels transported only 17.4 per cent. and foreign vessels 82.6 per cent.

—Startling, however, as are these statistics, they nevertheless fail to convey the exact truth of the situation at the present time of writing. For it must be borne in mind, that while the business of American shipping engaged in foreign trade has been rapidly
Edition: current; Page: [78]
disappearing, the opportunities for business have at the same time been increasing in a far more rapid ratio: or, to put the case differently, while there never was so much business calling for the employment of merchant vessels in the history of the world as at the present time, the extent to which the capital and industry of the United States participate in this business is annually growing less and less. Thus, taking merely the trade of the United States as an example, we find that out of a total value of exports and imports in 1860 of $762,000,000, the value transported in American vessels was $507,000,000, or 66.5 per cent.; but in 1880, out of a total value of exports and imports of $1,589,000,000, American vessels transported a value of only $28,000,000, or 17.6 per cent., a little more than half of what was done twenty years ago, or in 1860. Of this enormous increase every maritime nation of any note, with the exception of the United States, has taken a share. American tonnage alone exhibits a decrease. Thus comparing 1880 with 1856, the foreign tonnage entering the sea-ports of the United States increased nearly 11,000,000 tons; whereas the American tonnage entered during the same period exhibits a decrease of over 65,000 tons. British tonnage increased its proportion from 935,000 tons in 1856 to 7,903,000 in 1880; Germany, during the same time, from 166,000 to 1,089,000; Sweden and Norway from 20,662 to 1,234,000; Austria from 1,477 to 206,000; Spain from 63,813 to 227,496; while Russia, whose vessels participated in our trade in 1856 to the extent of only 40 tons in 1880, reported 104,049 tons.

—The tonnage of iron vessels, sail and steam, built in the United States from 1876 to 1880 inclusive, amounted to only 101,823 tons, and this trifling amount was almost entirely for our coastwise or home trade, in which no foreign competition whatever is allowed under the provisions of our navigation laws. No iron sailing vessels were built in the United States between 1871 and 1880; but during the latter year 44 tons were reported by the treasury department as having been constructed. Per contra the increase of iron shipbuilding in Great Britain during the corresponding period amounted to 1,800,193 tons.

—From these exhibits it is easy to comprehend the tremendous change that took place between 1856 and 1880 in the great department of domestic industry under consideration as measured in ship-building and in the business for which ships are constructed and used. Let us next endeavor to gauge the amount of this loss as measured in money.

—In 1855 the amount expended in the United States in the construction of new vessels was estimated at about $25,000,000 per annum; and a sum considerably in excess of this for the repair and rebuilding of old vessels; or a total for this branch of domestic industry of from $55,000,000 to $60,000,000 per annum. The bulk of this large expenditure was very largely for the labor of construction. A present (1881) annual expenditure in the United States of $25,000,000 for similar purposes would probably be an over rather than an under estimate. We start off in the money account, therefore, with a loss to the industry and business of the country in the two items of ship building and ship repairing of from $30,000,000 to $35,000,000 per annum.

—Again, the business of transporting merchandise or passengers by land or by sea is as much a productive industry as the raising of wheat, the spinning of fibres or the smelting or forging of iron. It adds to human comfort, it supplies wants, creates values, increases abundance.

—In foreign commerce, the freights paid on the things transported are as much exports or imports as the merchandise which is exported or imported. Thus, if 2,000 tons of coal of the value of $10,000 are sent in a vessel of the United States to China, and the freight on the same is $6,000, this freight is as much of an export of the results of American industry as the coal, and if paid and returned to the United States in the form of coin or tea or silk, may, and under ordinary circumstances will, add as much proportionally to the general wealth of the country as the proceeds of the sale of the coal upon which the freight was earned. On the other hand, if the coal is transported in a foreign vessel, the freight earned does not increase the capital or benefit the labor of the United States, but of the country to which the vessel belongs. The amount paid for the transport of the imports and exports of the United States for the calendar year 1879, has been estimated by the best authorities, (Henry Hall, of the U.S. census and Dr. E. H. Walker, late statistician of the New York produce exchange), at $88,000,000 as a minimum for exports and about $45,000,000 on imports, or an annual total of $133,000,000. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, Mr. Hall also reports 18,000,000 of gross tons of the produce and manufactures of the United States as exported, and 3,900,000 tons of the produce and manufactures of foreign countries as imported into the United States, the exports—grain, provisions, cotton, petroleum, etc.—representing a large bulk in comparison with value, and the imports—textiles, drugs, manufactures of metals, etc.—large value in proportion to bulk.

—Of the above estimated aggregate of freights paid on the exports and imports of the United States, probably not more than one-fifth, or $26,000,000 as a maximum, was carried under the American flag. If the proportions of the carrying trade which were controlled by the United States in 1860 had been simply maintained, without any increase, the present (1880) worth of the business which has been lost to the country in this department of domestic industry must be estimated at $86,000,000—$26,000,000, or $60,000,000 per annum.

—Adding to these estimates the loss of business consequent on the decline of ship building and ship repairing, and also the nearly total loss of the great business of ocean passenger and immigrant carriage—to be estimated for the year 1880 at not less than $15,000,000—and we have the sum of one hundred millions of dollars
Edition: current; Page: [79]
as the smallest measure in money of the annual worth, in 1880, of the business which the United States has lost in consequence of the decay of her commercial marine. If we assume, however, only seventy-five millions as the loss which the business and national wealth of the country at present annually sustains by reason of the decay of our industries of ship building, ship repairing and ship using in foreign commerce, then this loss would be equivalent to the almost complete wiping-out of the business of pig-iron smelting as it existed in the United States in 1870; to forty-five per cent. of our manufacture of cotton goods at the same period, and nearly the same proportion of the value of our woolen and worsted industries.

—As illustrating, furthermore, the extent to which the ocean carrying business is capable of development as a national industry, attention is asked to the fact that the gross amount of freight—exclusive of that on bullion—earned by British vessels on the transport of the exports and imports of the united kingdom for the year 1875-6 was estimated by the best authorities as £56,000,000, or $280,000,000.

—But the direct losses occasioned by the decay of our ocean commercial marine are insignificant in comparison with the indirect losses due to the loss of trade from an inability to make exchanges promptly, regularly and cheaply with foreign countries. No matter how well stocked the store may be with good, cheap and desirable goods, if would-be customers find great inconveniences in the way of getting to the store and in transporting to it their products for barter or exchange, they will not come, but trade elsewhere.

—Having inquired into and acquainted ourselves with the present condition of our foreign commercial marine, and having traced the gradual changes which have taken place in our ship-building industry and foreign carrying trade within the last quarter of a century, embraced between the years 1855 and 1880, we are now prepared to enter upon a discussion and analysis of the causes which have produced the existing most remarkable, and at the same time nationally discreditable condition of American ocean commerce.

—The facts already presented fully demonstrate that the war of the rebellion was not the cause, and did not mark the commencement of the decadence of American shipping, although the contrary is often and perhaps generally assumed by those who have undertaken to discuss this subject. The war simply hastened a decay which had already commenced, and under the same influences and conditions as have otherwise prevailed the same results would undoubtedly have been reached, even if no war had intervened. Neither can the paralysis with which the great branches of domestic industry under consideration have been smitten and have been threatened with extinction, be referred to such agencies as fluctuations of supply and demand, foreign wars, or financial revulsions at home or abroad, for all these influences have operated in the past, but have produced no such results, either in this country or elsewhere, as those we are considering. During the latter years of the period we are now treating—1878-80—the general prosperity of the country, measured by the volume of business transacted, and the amount of resulting profits, has been greater than ever before, and yet there has been not only no resuscitation of the American commercial marine, but rather a marked and further decline. It has been also a popular idea, that the continued decadence of American shipping since the close of the war in 1865, was in part due to the system of vicious irredeemable currency which the war engendered; but the currency of the country was restored to a specie basis in January, 1879, and foreign nations have no longer any advantage in this respect over the United States; and yet there were not half as many vessels built during the prosperous specie paying year of 1880, as during the height of the inflation period of 1868. To what then is the deplorable result, which no one denies has happened, to be attributed? The answer first is, not to one, but to several causes. The primary cause was, what may be termed a natural one, the result of the progress of the age and a higher degree of civilization—namely, the substitution of steam in the place of wind as an agent for ship propulsion, and the substitution of iron in the place of wood as a material for ship construction; and for nations or individuals to have attempted to permanently counteract the influence of these substitutions by legislation or any specific commercial policy, was as useless, as our own experience proves, as to have sought to arrest the stars in their courses. So long as wood was the article mainly used in the construction of vessels the United States had an advantage over foreign nations in the cost of the material, in the skill which we had acquired in working the same, and in the positive genius for the management of wooden sailing ships which natural faculty and more than two centuries of experience may be claimed to have nationally engendered. When, however, the steam engine was substituted for the sail, and iron for wood, then these advantages were in a great degree neutralized or wholly swept away.

—Foreign steam shipping and the successful application of iron to the construction of vessels designed for ocean navigation were accomplished facts in Great Britain as early as 1840. As is generally the case with all new inventions and discoveries, these startling innovations on an old established order of things were in the outset regarded doubtfully and, indeed, did not command the full confidence of the commercial public in both respects until a considerably later period. The application of steam to ocean navigation was the first to be accepted as an absolute necessity, and therefore as inevitable. The Americans waited until English experience had proved the fact to their full satisfaction, and then embraced the idea so eagerly and turned it to practical account so rapidly that the foreign steam tonnage of the United States, which really commenced to
Edition: current; Page: [80]
exist in 1848, nearly equaled in 1851 (as before shown) the entire steam tonnage of Great Britain of longer growth, and continued to regularly and largely increase until 1856. But during the period between 1848 and 1855 the commercial public had become pretty generally satisfied in respect to certain other matters. They had been taught by further experience that iron in the construction of vessels was much more durable than wood, and that whatever difference, therefore, there might be in the first cost, the iron vessel in the long run is cheaper than the wooden one. They had learned that iron vessels are more rigid than wooden vessels, and that the former are therefore better adapted to withstand the strain of heavy steam machinery, and also that from lack of the necessary strength and rigidity the application of the most economical method of propulsion—namely, the screw—is impracticable in the case of wooden vessels of large capacity. They had also learned that iron ships are superior to wooden ships in buoyancy, and hence draw less water with a given tonnage, carry a greater weight of cargo, and have a greater stowage capacity. In short, they had come to know that for the most practical purposes wooden ships in competition with iron ships were nowhere. American ship owners, merchants and navigators, or at least the more enterprising of their number, were not more backward in learning and understanding the significance of these facts than their English competitors; and the conditions of the hour for the continued prosperity of the American merchant marine were fully set forth in various commercial journals of the United States.

—Had matters been allowed to take their natural course; had Americans been allowed to simply take the advantage of the world's progress which was taken by their competitors, it is reasonable to infer that there would have been no material decline in the American shipping interest, and no such condition of things to bewail as exists at present. To assume to the contrary is to assume that Americans would have made an exception of this one department of their domestic industry, and have failed to bring to it that sagacity and skill that before and since have characterized all their other business operations. But matters were not allowed to take their natural course. The means and appliances for the construction of iron vessels did not then exist in the United States; while Great Britain, commencing in 1839, (when John Laird constructed his iron steamers for the British navy which afterward took part in the Chinese war), and with seventeen years of experience, had become equipped in 1855 for the prosecution of this great industry. The facilities for the construction of steam machinery adapted to the most economical propulsion of ocean vessels, furthermore, were also inferior in the United States to those existing in Great Britain, and by reason of statute provisions (see NAVIGATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES), citizens of the United States interested in ocean commerce were absolutely prevented and forbidden from availing themselves of the results of British skill and superiority in the construction of vessels when such a policy was the only expedient which could have enabled them at the time to hold their position in the ocean carrying trade in competition with their foreign rivals. Now, there is very little sentimentality in the representatives of trade and commerce, whatever may be their nationality. They simply ask, "Who will serve us best and at the cheapest rate?" And the inability of the ships of the United States to do the work which trade and commerce required that they should do as well and cheaply as the ships of other nations being established, the decadence of American shipping commenced and was inevitable from the very hour when this fact was first recognized, which was about the year 1856. Here, then, we have the primary cause of the decay of the business of ship building in the United States and of our commercial marine. Other causes—hereafter noted—have since come in and helped the decay and are powerfully operative to prevent recovery; but so long as the conditions, which in the outset were the source of the trouble, continue to prevail, decay will continue to go on and there can be no recovery. Attention should here be called to the circumstance that the relation of the United States to Great Britain in this matter of ship construction and employment has been no different from the very outset of the new era in navigation from that of all other maritime nations, with the single exception that, as the interest of the United States in the new conditions was greater than that of all these others combined, it was incumbent on the former to act with the greatest wisdom and discretion, and not allow prejudice and ancient conservatism to prevent the removal of obstacles which stood in the way of national growth and development. But none of these nations, with the possible exception of old Spain, acted as did the United States Taking a practical, common-sense view of the situation and setting sentiment aside, they concluded that it would be the height of folly to permit a great and profitable department of their industries to be impaired or destroyed rather than allow certain improvements in the management of its details, because suggested and carried out by a foreign nation, to be purchased and adopted. And they, therefore, virtually said to their own people: "If England can build better and cheaper ships for ocean commerce than you can yourselves, and will furnish them to you on terms as favorable in every respect as is granted to her own citizens, and if your own private judgment and feeling of self-interest prompts you to buy and use such ships, the state will interpose no obstacles to your so doing. As between a business and the instrumentalities for doing business the interests of the first are to be first considered, for if the business fails, the instrumentalities employed in it, be they good or bad, will retain but little of value; whereas, on the other hand, if the business can be kept profitable there need be no apprehension
Edition: current; Page: [81]
as to a deficiency or imperfection of the instrumentalities." And the merchants and capitalists of these maritime states, adopting the course which seemed best to them under the circumstances, went to England and supplied themselves with ships and steamers of the most approved patterns, and sharing with the English the monopoly of owning and using the same, have always derived great profit therefrom. And the several states, furthermore which permitted their citizens to act without restraint in accordance with their own best judgment in this matter, have never had any such results as the United States has experienced, but, on the contrary, have seen their commercial tonnage and carrying trade upon the high seas largely increase, and if their shipping interests have since experienced any vicissitudes, they have not in any one instance been referred to influences even remotely connected with the liberal policy that was adopted. On the other hand, the policy of the United States under the same circumstances has been very much as if at the outset of the development of the railway system as an improved method of transporting goods and passengers, some one state of the Union—say Ohio, for example—had said, "We have no manufactories of locomotives or cars, or mills for rolling railway bars, within our territory; state pride and a desire to be wholly independent will not allow us to purchase these articles of Pennsylvania; therefore we will continue to use horses and wagons, which heretofore answered our purposes of transportation, and not use railroads until we can manufacture all railroad equipments ourselves." People in other states would have been prompted to characterize the action of the people of Ohio as irrational, and as in opposition to their material interests, and yet the boundary line which separates the United States from Great Britain is just as much a mater of artificial ordination as that which separates Ohio from Pennsylvania. But be this as it may, the result in the hypothetical case would have been exactly the same as is the result in the real case. Ohio would not have got her railroads not the wealth and development that would have flowed from their construction. The United States has not got the ships, or the wealth and business that have been attendant upon their possession and skillful employment in other countries.

—But, although the navigation laws of the United States have been undoubtedly the prime agency in originally occasioning this decadence, and subsequently preventing the resuscitation of American shipping engaged in foreign commerce, other influences have also powerfully contributed to the same results. Among these, the influence of the high protective tariff system of the United States which has been in operation since 1861, must be regarded as most prejudicial; first, by enhancing the price of nearly all articles entering into the domestic construction and equipment of vessels, and for which the allowance of a drawback on the importation of similar articles of foreign production has afforded but a partial relief; and secondly, by preventing that reciprocity of trade between the United States and various foreign countries, which is essential to the full and profitable employment of vessels. Ships are the children and not the parents, the effect and not the cause of commerce; and so long as the commercial policy of the United States restricts the producers of this country from freely exchanging the products of their labor with the products of the labor of the producers of other countries, foreign commerce will not develop or a national commercial marine find a basis for growth or even existence.

—Another serious obstacle in the way of the profitable employment of American vessels in foreign commerce, is the system of state or local taxation generally adopted by the several states of the federal union, under which ships are taxed as personal property, to their owners; a practice which does not prevail in any other of the leading maritime nations. The manner in which such taxes work to the disadvantage of American shipping may be thus illustrated: Let us suppose the projection of a new line of steamships to run between the United States and Europe in competition with existing lines, now controlled by foreign capitalists and registered under a foreign flag. If the nationality of the company is to be American and its location any one of our leading Atlantic cities—except Philadelphia—the taxation on the whole accessible capital or property of the company—ships, wharfs, machine shops, offices—and floating capital, will be from 1.50 to 2.50, or even greater per cent., on a pretty full valuation. In the State of New York the tax is to a great extent evaded. In many of the other states it is, however, rigidly enforced. [Since this article was written (1880), New York and Massachusetts have exempted ships engaged in foreign commerce from local taxation.] On the other hand, Pennsylvania, when she some years ago incorporated a local transatlantic steamship company having its situs in Philadelphia, judiciously exempted all ships engaged in foreign trade, as well as all other property—stocks, bonds, etc.—of the company in question, from all state taxation. Furthermore, until recently, the national government would have preferred an average tax under the tariff of about 40 per cent. on all articles of foreign production entering into the construction of vessels, and as a consequence it advanced the price of similar articles of domestic production to an equal or nearly corresponding extent. By the act of June, 1872, however, articles of foreign growth or production "necessary for the construction and equipment of vessels built in the United States for the purpose of being engaged in foreign trade" may be imported in bond free of duty; but vessels receiving the benefit of this provision are not allowed to engage in the coastwise trade of the United States for more than two months in any one year. As one consequence of this restriction, a New York ship owner stated at the recent meeting
Edition: current; Page: [82]
of the national board of trade (December, 1880,) that, having occasion to send a vessel built for foreign trade from New York to New Orleans for temporary employment, he was obliged before he could do it to pay $400 for duties on the suit of metal which had been previously placed on the ship's bottom. For some years after the war, also, when the shipping interests of the United States engaged in foreign trade had suffered exceptionally from the inability of the government to protect it from confederate cruisers, and when it, therefore, needed the kindliest and most fostering care, income taxes were imposed on the incomes of ship-owners (if they perchance happened to have any) and in addition heavy taxes on the gross receipts of their entire business and upon every passenger ticket by them sold. When the largest possible damage had been effected these national taxes were repealed. But the practice of Great Britain and other nations of allowing vessels employed in foreign commerce to take stores for voyage consumption out of bond free of duty has not as yet been thought worthy of imitation, and as a consequence the cost of ship supplies in the United States was reported by a committee of congress a few years ago to be about 20 per cent. in the aggregate in excess of the cost of supplies to vessels of Great Britain. If now, on the other hand, the situs of the prospective new steamship company is made foreign and its location fixed at Liverpool, the whole amount of local taxation to which the company would be subjected would be merely an assessment to the extent of from 10 to 25 per cent. on the rental—not capital—value of the premises occupied either as offices, storehouses or machine shops. Beyond this the British government would levy an income tax on the profits (if any) of the shareholders or owners, as individuals, which tax is at present about 2 per cent., but in 1875 and 1876 was less than 1 per cent.; and, omitting all other forms of direct taxation, would allow all articles subject to taxation either under the excise or tariff, such as distilled spirits, teas, sugars, coffee, wines and tobacco, which may be required for use on board the steamer in question, to be taken from bond free of duty. The difference in the return on the investment, therefore, growing out of the difference merely in the fiscal systems recognized in the different locations specified, would be of itself sufficient to afford to the foreign capitalist a dividend on his stock equal to at least one-half of the ordinary rate of European interest on the capital employed, while to the American investor the disadvantage would have an expression at least twofold greater through an increase of expenses and a diminution of profit which can be traced directly to a system of taxation which has enhanced the price of everything that has entered into the steamer, from the laying of her keel to the coal that feeds her engines. In Great Britain and other countries it is furthermore to be noted that the ownership of a ship that is idle and not earning, or employed and not earning, does not entail any burden of taxation, but in the United States it makes no difference whether the ship be at work or idle, profitably or unprofitably employed, she pays taxes all the same.

—With competition with foreign nations on terms of equality being, therefore, from the very outset, not less by state than by federal laws, rendered impossible, is it to be wondered at that the American ocean marine has declined almost to extinction, or that there are so few mechanical establishments in the United States capable of building or repairing first-class steamships?

—Tonnage taxes on shipping are not levied by Great Britain, nor, it is believed, by any other of the maritime states of Europe, except Spain. Prior to the war also there were no tonnage taxes in the United States, and their enactment in 1862 was due simply and exclusively to the urgent necessities of the government for revenue occasioned by the war. Those necessities having long since passed there is no good or sufficient reason for the continuance of such taxes. The rates imposed on American and foreign vessels being substantially the same, American vessels would not seem to be relatively at a disadvantage with foreign vessels on account of these taxes. But really they are; inasmuch as in the one case the effect of the tax is generally to reduce realized profits, while in the other it constitutes, under existing circumstances, an obstacle, as will be presently shown, in the way of realizing any profits at all.

—According to British maritime rules the tonnage capacity of vessels is reckoned on only such space as is available for cargo, and in the measurement of vessels for the ascertainment of their capacity allowance is made for the space occupied for the accommodation of the officers and crew and also by the machinery. In the United States the space occupied by the water closets and galley are alone exempt from admeasurement; and as a consequence American vessels are at a disadvantage as compared with British shipping in respect to tonnage and harbor dues and light money in ports where such taxes are levied. Again, a sailing vessel which enters an American port once a year is obliged to pay as much tonnage tax as a steamer that enters the same port every month; and if in a given line a steamer which has paid her tonnage taxes for a year becomes disabled and is withdrawn during the first month of the year the substitute steamer must pay tonnage all the same for another full year.

—The charges of our consular system are claimed, and undoubtedly with truth, to be another weighty burden on American shipping engaged in foreign trade. These fees are all fixed by congress, and paid into the United States treasury, and have evidently been arranged with the idea of not only rendering the United States consular system self-sustaining but of also making it a source of revenue to the government. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, the amount of consular fees paid into the United States treasury was $592,161, and the amount disbursed for consular salaries $465,641. For contingencies
Edition: current; Page: [83]
pertaining to the consulates there was also disbursed the additional sum of $164,000. Compulsory pilotage, the three months' extra pay to crews discharged in foreign lands—the great mass of sailors being now of foreign nationality and as much at home in one port as another—and the obligatory employment of government officials for the shipment of sailors in American ports, are also further obstacles in the way of the prosperity of the American commercial marine from which its foreign competitors are either wholly or in a great degree exempt. By a system of compulsory dues on incoming and outgoing vessels, (from which only the coasting service is exempt), the Sandy Hook pilot service of the port of New York, which consists of 133 New York and 58 New Jersey pilots, derives a yearly income from the commerce of the port of $800,000 to $1,000,000. The specific amounts charged are said to be two and a half times in excess what is paid in Liverpool for similar service; and at the shipping convention at Boston in October, 1880, Mr. James E. Ward, of New York, stated that his firm "paid as large an amount for pilotage into New York harbor as they did to the captain of his steamship for sailing the vessel all the way to Cuba and back, facing all the dangers of the seas and the risk of contagion in Cuba." These compulsory pilot charges contribute to make New York one of the most expensive ports for shipping in the world.

—From this history of the rise and fall of the American merchant marine it must be evident that no one measure will arrest the decay of American shipping now in progress, bring back prosperity to the ocean carrying trade, or revive the shipbuilding interests of the United States; but that the field of reform to be entered upon is very large and the number of details to be attended to very numerous. Reform and prosperity are, however, both possible and practicable if the people of the United States desire and will it.

—To complete this history, a further special reference is needed to the American merchant marine engaged in "coastwise" or domestic commerce as contradistinguished from that engaged in "foreign" commerce. American vessels engaged in foreign trade, in order to be qualified by law for so doing, are required to be registered "by the collector of that collection district which includes the port to which such vessel shall belong at the time of her registry; which shall be deemed to be that at or nearest to which the owner, or managing owner, of such vessel usually resides" (U.S. Revised Statutes, section 4141.) Registered vessels are subject to the payment of tonnage taxes and various regulations from which vessels engaged exclusively in foreign trade are exempt. (See Revised Statutes of the United States, titles XL VIII and XLIX, sections 4131 to 4310 inclusive.) Vessels designed for the coastwise or domestic commerce, if of less than twenty tons burden, are required to be licensed, and if in excess of twenty tons are required to be both licensed and enrolled in the collection district where owned; are not subject to the payment of tonnage taxes, and are not permitted to engage in foreign trade, without changing their enrollment for a register. Vessels of foreign construction, or owned in part, or commanded by foreigners, are not permitted to engage in the coastwise or domestic commerce of the United States. Vessels licensed for the carrying on of fisheries can, before sailing, obtain special permits for touching or trading at foreign ports; but any such vessel found within three leagues of the coast with merchandise of foreign growth or production on board, exceeding five hundred dollars in value, without special permit for the carriage of the same, is made subject to confiscation, with cargo. For further details of regulations respecting the coastwise commerce of the United States, see Revised Statutes of the United States, title L, sections 4311-4390.

—The tonnage of vessels of the United States, owned by American citizens and sailing under the American flag, on the 30th of June, 1880, was as follows:

The employment of tonnage on the 30th of June, 1880, was reported by the register of the United States treasury to have been as follows:

In the foreign trade...

1,352,810.31

In the coastwise crade...

2,649,352.84

In the cod and mackerel fisheries...

77,538.73

In the whale fishery...

38,408.12

The tonnage of sailing vessels—including canal boats and barges—and of steam vessels, comprising the merchant marine of the United States from 1860 to 1880 inclusive, is thus reported by the U.S. treasury department:

Edition: current; Page: [84]
The following table exhibits the tonnage of vessels of the United States employed in the foreign trade, coastwise trade, whale fisheries, and in the cod and mackerel fisheries, from 1860 to 1880 inclusive:

The following table (derived from reports of the U. S. bureau of statistics) also exhibits the value of the imports and exports of the United State carried, respectively, in United States vessels and in foreign vessels, during the twenty-five years, from 1856 to 1880, with the percentage carried in vessels of the United States—(including merchandise and coin and bullion):

The following table, derived from the annual report of the U. S. bureau of statistics, exhibits the tonnage of American and foreign vessels entered at seaports of the United States during each year from 1860 to 1879 inclusive:

Edition: current; Page: [85]

DAVID A. WELLS.

AMERICAN PARTY

AMERICAN PARTY, The (IN U. S. HISTORY). Opposition to aliens has at intervals been a feature in American polities from the foundation of the government. During the period 1790-1812 the question whether war should be declared against Great Britain or against France was almost always a critical one, the democrats (see DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY) preferring, of the two, war against Great Britain, and the federalists (see FEDERAL PARTY) war against France, though both were professedly anxious for neutrality. During this period most of the immigrants were really banished men, driven from England, Scotland or Ireland for too free use of the printing press, for hostility to the British government, or for affection to that of France. Naturally these immigrants took the democratic view of the great debatable question, in all its ramifications; as naturally the federalists became an anti-alien party; and as naturally the aliens sought refuge in a permanent alliance with the democrats which has been kept up by their successors.

—The first naturalization act (March 26, 1790,) made two years residence necessary, and this was prolonged by act of Jan. 29, 1795, to five years, as at present; but the federalists, in 1798, having taken advantage of the war fever against France and their own almost absolute power, raised the period to fourteen years (see ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS). Jefferson's election and the democratic triumph in 1800 brought the period back to five years in 1802, and insured fresh reinforcements of aliens to the dominant party. The British minister, Foster, soon after his return, in 1812, from America, where he had honestly and vainly striven to avert war, stated in the house of commons that, among those who voted in congress for the declaration of war, were at least six late members of the society of united Irishmen. The increasing feeling of the federalists produced an anti-alien clause in the amendments proposed by the Hartford convention. (see CONVENTION, HARTFORD), but with returning peace the nativist feeling died away. When the congressional caucus, in 1824, nominated Crawford and Albert Gallatin, (a Swiss by birth), the latter withdrew because of the strong objection made to his nomination, which, indeed, was improper (see CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT XII. ¶3).

—The first revival of nativism was naturally in New York city, where a foreign population early began to form. In 1835-7 an attempt at a native organization was made, but it had ended in failure before the election for mayor in April, 1837. The close vote of the whigs and democrats, and their alternate successes, had given bitterness to their contests in the city, and when the democrats at the election for mayor in April, 1843, carried the city, (Morris, democrat, 25,398; Smith, whig, 19,517), they proceeded to parcel out the local offices, giving the lion's share to foreign born citizens. The result was seen at the election for state senator in November, 1843: Jones, democrat, 14,325; Franklin, whig, 14,291; Quackenboss, American republican, 8,549; the latter's vote being evidently mainly democratic. In April, 1844, the vote stood: Harper, native American, 24,510; Coddington, democrat, 20,538; Franklin, whig, 5,297; and the city passed under native control. By this time the native movement had spread to New Jersey and Philadelphia, and in the latter place several lives were lost and much property (including two Catholic churches) destroyed in riots between natives and Irish citizens. The whigs had generally voted with the democratic natives in order to secure their vote for Henry Clay, but when, in November, 1844, New York city and Philadelphia gave native majorities, and at the same time majorities for the democratic presidential electors, the whigs drew off. In April, 1845, the vote in New York city stood: Havemeyer, democrat, 24,307; Harper, native American, 17,485; Selden, whig, 7,032; and, in 1847, the new party had disappeared in New York city. As a result of the election of 1844, the 29th congress, in December, 1845, had 6 native representatives, 4 from New York (2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th districts), and 2 from Pennsylvania (1st and 3rd districts). In the 30th congress there was but one, (Pennsylvania, 1st dist.). Thereafter for some years, with the exception of very small votes occasionally cast in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, nativism disappeared.

—About 1852, when the rapidly growing sectional contest as to the extension of slavery to the territories had begun to sap the old allegiance of members of both parties, and when the whigs might almost be described as maddened by the steady stream of reinforcement which their democratic opponents were receiving from immigration, nativism again appeared in the form, new to American politics, of a secret, oath-bound fraternity, whose name is said to have been The Sons of '76, or The Order of the Star Spangled Banner. Its real name and objects were not revealed even to its members until they had reached the higher degrees, and their constant answer when questioned on these subjects—"I don't know"—became
Edition: current; Page: [86]
almost a shibboleth of the order and gave it the popular name by which it is still known—know-nothings. Its ostensible moving causes were the increasing power and designs of the Roman Catholic church in America, the sudden influx of immigrants after the failure of the European revolutionary movements in 1848-50, and the greed and incapacity of naturalized citizens for public office; its cardinal principle was that "Americans must rule America"; and its favorite countersign was a mythical order of Washington on a critical occasion, "Put none but Americans on guard to-night." Its nominations were made by secret conventions of delegates from the various lodges, and were voted for by all members under penalty of expulsion. At first these nominations were merely selections of the best men from the rival whig and democratic tickets. No public notice of such endorsement was ever given, but its effects were visible in the counting of the votes and threw political calculations into chaos. So long as this plan was followed, though the order's name did not appear in politics, it was really the arbiter of elections.

—In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed, and resulted in the permanent division of the northern whigs. Those who were not sufficiently opposed to slavery to enter the new republican party, and who despaired of further national success under their old party name, saw no refuge from the democratic party and its reinforcements from increasing immigration except in the know-nothing order, which now, tacitly accepting the name of the American party, struck out a separate existence in politics. The race between the republican and American parties was at first fairly even. In the state elections of 1854 the latter party carried Massachusetts and Delaware, and in New York polled the respectable vote of 122,282. But it was still a middle state party and had no opening in the west, where the republican party was steadily conquering a place as the only opponent of the democratic party. In the state elections of 1855 the American party, though it gained little in the west, made a great stride in advance southward, spreading its organization among the former whigs in that section. So late as 1881 the proportion of foreign born population in the south, except in Florida, Louisiana and Texas, was under two per cent., or practically nothing. In 1855 this absence of foreign born population was universal in the south, and the nativist feeling among the whigs of that section made it easy to transfer them to the American party, which thus secured in both sections, the governors and legislatures of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, California and Kentucky, the controller and legislature of Maryland, and the land commissioner of Texas, and in Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, was beaten only by majorities ranging from 2,000 to 11,000. It seemed for the moment that three parties would exist in future, a republican party in the west, and an American party in the southern and middle states, struggling for supremacy in the northeast, while the democratic organization remained intact in all the sections. Even in the hour of the American party's first successes, however, Greeley, of New York, shrewdly observed that it seemed to have "about as many of the elements of persistence as an anti-cholera or anti-potato-rot party would have."

—Encouraged by its brilliant initiation into state politics, the order began preparations for a campaign as a national party in 1856, hoping for support from all who were tired of agitation either for or against slavery. Instead of this it aimed to introduce opposition to aliens and Catholicism as a national question. Leading Catholics were brought to bay in public controversies, the persecutions in all countries by the Catholic church were recounted, special denunciations were leveled at Bedini, the "pope's nuncio," and Americans were warned that the inquisition would "kindle the fires of the holy auto da fé on the high places of our republic, and deluge our blooming plains with American blood." The hollowness of this effort to escape the inevitable conflict, ostrich-fashion, became evident in the party's first and only national convention, into which the dreaded slavery question at once forced its entrance. Feb. 19, 1856, a secret grand council of delegates met at Philadelphia and after a stormy session of three days adopted, Feb. 21, a platform in sixteen propositions, the principal being as follows: (3) "Americans must rule America and to this end native born citizens should be selected for all state, federal and municipal offices. (9) A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued residence of twenty-one years necessary for future citizenship (12) The enforcement of 'all laws' until repealed or decided unconstitutional. (13) Opposition to Pierce's administration for its expulsion of 'Americans' from office, and its reopening sectional strife by repealing the Missouri compromise. (15) That state councils should abolish their degrees, and substitute a pledge of honor to applicants for admission."

—The party, thus dropping a part of its secret machinery, hoped to gain votes in the north by denouncing the administration, and the Kansas-Nebraska bill, in the south by upholding the fugitive slave law, and in both sections by substituting nativism for slavery agitation. The open nominating convention met the following day, Feb. 22, with 227 delegates, Maine, Vermont, Georgia and South Carolina, being unrepresented. About 50 delegates were "north" Americans, of republican, or anti-Nebraska, sympathies, and these offered a resolution denying the power of the secret grand council to bind the convention by a platform. This was negatived, 141 to 59, and by 151 to 51, a ballot for candidates was ordered. Many of the "north" Americans then withdrew. After one informal ballot, Millard Fillmore was nominated, on the first formal ballot, as follows: M. Fillmore, 179; George Law, 24; Kenneth Rayner, 14; John McLean, 13; Garret Davis, 10; Sam. Houston,
Edition: current; Page: [87]
3. Necessary to a choice, 122.

—By a vote of 181 to 24 for all others, Andrew Jackson Donclson, of Tennessee, was nominated for vice president, and the convention adjourned. Its nominations were adopted, "without adopting or referring to the peculiar doctrines of" the American party, by a whig national convention at Baltimore, Sept. 17.

—The preliminary state elections of 1856 were by no means discouraging for the American party. In New Hampshire and Rhode Island its governors were renominated and elected in the spring, so that eight of the thirty-two states now had American governors. The presidential election in November, however, showed that in national matters the party had indeed none of the "elements of persistence." In New Hampshire, in March, 1856, the vote had been 32,119 American, 32,031 democratic, 2,360 whig; in November of the same year it was 38,345 republican, 32,789 democratic, 422 American. The first wave of the republican tide from the west had washed nativism almost out of New England. The American (popular) vote was 874,534 in a total of 4,053,967; and its total electoral vote was 8 out of 296, the vote of Maryland.

—In the state elections of 1857 the American party carried Rhode Island and Maryland, and in the 35th congress, which met in December, 1857, it had from 15 to 20 representatives and 5 senators. When the 36th congress met in 1859 it had become almost entirely a border state or "south" American party, having 2 senators, one each from Kentucky and Maryland, and 23 representatives, as follows: Kentucky 5, Tennessee 7, Maryland 3, Virginia 1, North Carolina 4, Georgia 2, and Louisiana 1, (see BORDER STATES). In 1860 (see CONSTITUTIONAL UNION PARTY) it made another desperate effort to save the country by ignoring slavery agitation, and, having failed to carry the south, disappeared finally from politics.

—The existence of a secret and oath bound party was always an anachronism in an age and country where free political discussion is allowed. But the short lived organization introduced many young men to politics, who would have found no opportunity in the other parties, and served to delay in some degree the inevitable conflict until the adverse elements had fully come to a head. (See WHIG PARTY; ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, II.; UNITED STATES.)

—See Sons of the Sires (anon.); 2 Wilson's Slave Power, 419-434; Principles and Objects of the American Party (anon.); Wise's Seven Decades; O. A. Brownson's Essays and Reviews (art. Native Americanism); Godwin's Political Essays; 2 von Holst's United States, 523; 3 Seward's Works, 386-389; Bromwell's Immigration, 157; Knapp's Immigration, 228-30; Tribune Almanac, 1844-6, 1855-7; Clay's Private Correspondence, 497-520; Carroll's Great American Battle; Lee's Origin and Progress of the American Party; Whitney's Defense of the American Policy; Warner's Liberties of America; Denig's Know-Nothing Manual; and later authorities under WHIG PARTY. The acts of March 26, 1790, Jan. 29, 1795, and June 18, 1798, (see ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS), are in 1 Stat. at Large, 103, 414, 566; the act of April 14, 1802, is in 2 Stat. at Large, 153. Slight amendments have been made to the last named act but without essentially changing it. By the act of March 3, 1813, (2 Stat. at Large, 811), five years' residence was required before admission; but this was repealed by act of June 26, 1848, (9 Stat. at Large, 240).

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

AMERICAN WHIGS

AMERICAN WHIGS (IN U. S. HISTORY), the first American political party. Of the two English parties during the years 176-5, the tories upheld the principle of passive obedience to the crown, while the whigs aimed to "fight up against the king and against the people." Neither pretended to uphold "the people" as a political force. When George II., abandoning the direct assertion of royal prerogative, but still aiming to exert it indirectly through a purchased parliament as his instrument, attempted to ignore or subvert the legislative bodies in America, those Americans who had the political wisdom to see that they were contending against the king under the mask of parliament naturally preferred the name of American whigs. Its first appearance seems to have been in New York city in 1768. When the king declared his American subjects out of his allegiance, and they consequently declared their independence of him, the name whig became synonymous with that of patriot, while that of tory was given to the American supporters of the crown. After the peace the whigs, having banished the most prominent tories, and confiscated their estates, remained the only party in America until the question of a closer union divided Americans into federalists and anti-federalists. (See DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, ANTI-FEDERAL PARTY.)

—See 6 Bancroft's United States, 141.

A. J.

AMES

AMES, Fisher, was born in Dedham, Mass., April 9, 1758, and died there July 4, 1808. He was graduated at Harvard in 1774, was admitted to the bar in 1781, and was a member of the house of representatives 1789-97. In politics he was a federalist, and his ability made him one of the leaders of his party. In eloquence he seems to have held the first rank in the first four congresses. As an instance, it is said that, at the conclusion of his speech in favor of the execution of Jay's treaty, in 1796, the opponents of the treaty secured an adjournment in order to neutralize if possible its influence on the wavering. Failing health removed him from politics, in 1797. (See JAY'S TREATY, FEDERAL PARTY.) His works have been collected in two volumes.

—See Ames' Works of Fisher Ames; 1 Benton's Debates of Congress.

A. J.

AMISTAD CASE

AMISTAD CASE, The (IN U. S. HISTORY). June 27, 1839, the schooner L'Amistad left Havana for Puerto Principe, with a cargo of slaves, fresh from Africa. The slaves, at the first opportunity
Edition: current; Page: [88]
rose in revolt and killed the whites except two, whom they reserved to navigate the vessel to Africa. The two white men gradually altered the ship's course so that, in August, she was off Long Island, New York, where she was seized by a United States war vessel, and sent into New London. Mr. Calderon, the Spanish minister, in the absence of an extradition treaty, asked the surrender of the ship and cargo as an act of international comity, and president Van Buren, supported by the advice of the attorney general, was determined to grant the request on the ground that the slaves were "property rescued from pirates," which Spain and the United States, by the treaty of Oct. 27, 1795, had agreed to mutually restore. Counsel for the slaves contended that even by the Spanish law, they were free men, having been illegally carried into slavery from Africa. The case first came on in the district court, and the administration was so confident of the result that a vessel was ordered to New Haven to convey the blacks to Cuba. But the abolitionists, throughout the country, took an intense interest in the case, secured counsel, and gained a verdict in the district court. The district attorney then appealed to the circuit court, and thence to the supreme court, which gave final judgment, March 9, 1841, that the blacks, having been kidnapped from a foreign country, were not bound by treaties with Spain, but were free men. The case in the supreme court was distinguished by the argument of John Quincy Adams in favor of the blacks.

—The case is in 15 Peters, 518, (14 Curtis, 156); 3 Opinions of the Attorneys General, 484; 10 Adams' Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, 398; 2 von Holst's United States, 321. The treaty of 1795 is in 8 Stat. at Large, 138; art. 9, p. 142, is the one specially referred to. See Barber's History of the Amistad Captives.

A. J.

AMNESTY

AMNESTY. Amnesty is the reproduction of a Greek word, the literal meaning of which is forgetfulness. This is also the true meaning of the English word. To grant an amnesty is not to forgive or pardon; it is to forget. Amnesty preserves a character of generality, and of absolute remission which no other form of clemency implies. Thus the right of amnesty is the broadest privilege of victory and power. Amnesty has frequently to deal more with the treachery of fortune than with the faults of men. Thrasybulus, after having driven out the thirty tyrants of Athens, had a law passed by the people, called the law of forgetfulness, which forbade the troubling of any citizen on account of past acts. This example sustains our definition and marks clearly the sense and bearing of the word. After a struggle or conflict and especially after civil convulsion, when victory has pronounced in favor of a person or a party, when the vanquished have laid down their arms and hatred has left the battle-field to take refuge in the breasts of men, clemency is sometimes called on to finish the work begun by proscription, and the scaffold; and that which was obtained neither from the rigor of persecution nor the terror of torture is obtained by an amnesty which appeases minds, cicatrizes wounds, and lulls vengeance to sleep.

—Amnesty, emanating always from the will of man or of a political body, has no fixed rules. It varies according to the character or interest of the grantor, or the circumstances inspiring it. It is general or particular, absolute or conditional. It is general when it comprises a whole class of offenses, and makes no exception of persons. It is particular when it excludes a whole class of individuals judged unworthy of it. It is conditional when it subjects the people it has in view to the performance of certain conditions. It is absolute when it imposes no conditions. We will cite a few cases of the different kinds of amnesty which we have just named. One of the most celebrated amnesties is that mentioned in the treaty of Passau. Not only was it general and absolute, but it seems that after having amnestied the combatants it was desired to amnesty the war itself. It called the brilliant campaigns of Maurice de Saxe, simply "military exercises." The thirty years war brought to a close by the treaty of Münster was also followed by an amnesty called full and entire, but the execution of which met with many difficulties.

—When Charles II. re-ascended the throne, he declared a general amnesty without restriction, but parliament interfered, and the majority, more royalist than the king, excepted the judges who had condemned Charles I. This regretable exception, as is known, was made a pretext for fearful reprisals. But there is a still bloodier page in the history of amnesty. Sincere in appearance, but serving in reality to cover the most abominable designs, the amnesty granted to the Huguenots, in 1570, was an odious snare and paved the way for the massacre of St. Bartholomew.

—A few facts more: In 1413 a truce was made between the Armagnacs and the Bourgignons under the name of letters of abolition. It was an amnesty intended to efface the whole of a bloody past. A century later, at Bordeaux, an amnesty followed the repression of seditious movements which had taken place in the city. In 1556, 1560, and 1572, in consequence of various episodes in religious wars, amnesties were accorded, guaranteeing to the conquered heretics life and possession of their property.

—In 1749 an insurrection broke out at Lyons. The question was about a regulation of the council of wardens. The acclamation of the working class was answered by musket shots. The whole population rose up, sustained and excited, even by the women. The armed force was driven from the city. The conquerors executed justice on the unlucky regiment, the original cause of the trouble. The case was a grave one; the precedent perilous. Yet clemency prevailed, and to proportion it to the importance of the occasion the form of a general amnesty was given it.

—It is not by facts alone that the distinctive characteristics of an amnesty are revealed. They are indicated and
Edition: current; Page: [89]
commented upon in the writings of the lawyers of the time. "The king," says Rousseaud de Lacombe, "accords sometimes letters of abolition to a city, a province, a community, for deeds or crimes committed against the interests, the order, or the will of the king, or against the royal authority; this pardon is called an amnesty," and he adds: "It is necessary to follow blindly whatever is ordained by the letters and decisions containing the amnesty or abolition."

—Almost all the governments which have succeeded each other in France since the revolution of 1789 have had recourse to amnesty with a view to peace and concord; but the crises were so near each other, hatred so pertinacious, passions so hot, that the conqueror almost always sacrificed some victim to his safety or his rancor. There are exceptions to almost all amnesties. In 1814 the restoration recoiled even before this measure. It was replaced by article 11 of the constitutional charter, declaring that no man could be prosecuted for his political opinions. Napoleon was bolder on his political opinions. Napoleon was bolder on his return from the island of Elba. After declaring all who had assisted in overturning the imperial throne state criminals, he granted them a full and complete amnesty, from which were excepted only 13 of the most guilty. This example of partial and restrictive amnesty was imitated at the second restoration. Published only on Jan. 12, 1816, this new amnesty did not include a certain number of prominent persons, among whom it will suffice to mention Ney, Labédoyère and Lavalette. The men who had voted the death of Louis XVI. were proscribed, and the power was reserved of banishing from the kingdom in the space of two months, certain suspected persons, among the number Soult, Bassano, Vandamne, Carnot, Hulin, Merlin and others. This was mingling many an irritating souvenir with a measure the real meaning of which is forgetfulness (amnesty).

—To whom belongs the right of granting amnesty; and how may different political constitutions, modify the exercise of that right? These questions we shall examine now.

—It is of the essence of this right to belong to the sovereign. Simple as this rule is when the sovereignty is one and absolute, its interpretation may vary greatly if the sovereignty is limited or divided. Under the ancient monarchy of France, for instance, when the king desired to grant an amnesty, he sent the letters of abolition to be registered, and we do not think that any parliament would have allowed itself to remonstrate on this subject. Even the quotation from Rousseaud de Lacombe made above, shows how free this law was from restriction.

—It has been the same wherever the same form of government has existed.

—In republics this right has passed to the sovereign assembly which retains and defends it against the claims of the executive, which sees with good reason in this power the index and the means of preponderant powers. France has witnessed the spectacle of this struggle on two memorable occasions which we need to recall because the distinction between pardon and amnesty was clearly established on both occasions. According to article 16 of the senatus-consultum of the 15th thermidor, year X., the first consul had only the right to pardon. The power of granting amnesty had not been given him. Napoleon wished that this anomaly should disappear.

—Article 57 of the law of April 22, 1815, an addition to the constitution of the empire, was thus worded: The emperor has the right of pardon even in correctional matters, and of granting amnesties. In 1848, at the time of discussing the articles of the constitution, the project drawn up by the commission was worded thus: Amnesty can be accorded only by a law. M. Aylies proposed an amendment, that the words, "On the propositions of the president of the republic" be added. This amendment was opposed in the name of the commission by M. Dupin. He maintained that the power left the president of anticipating the assembly in proposing an amnesty was enough of a prerogative. The constitutional assembly rejected the amendment. The wording of the commission was retained. Article I., of the senatus-consultum of Dec. 25, 1852, is thus worded: The emperor has the right to pardon and grant amnesties. The charter of 1814 was silent on the question of amnesty, and we have seen that article 11 had in view the effacement of the political past of all citizens. Under the régime established in 1871, the right of amnesty in France, is reserved to the national assembly. Certain political casuists have asked, not without some puerility, what are the signs by which the claims of a new power to the right of amnesty are to be recognized, and who is to be the judge if the terms of the act are not sufficiently clear? This double question will remain long unanswered if it is to be examined aside from accomplished facts.

A. HÉBRARD.

AMNESTY

AMNESTY (IN U. S. HISTORY). I. Dec. 8, 1863, president Lincoln issued his first proclamation of amnesty. It was based upon the president's constitutional power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Congress had authorized such a proclamation by act of July 17, 1862. The proclamation offered a full pardon and restoration of property rights, except in slaves and in cases where rights had accrued to third parties, to all, with the exceptions hereafter given, who would take and keep the following oath: "I———, do solemnly swear, in presence of almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and the union of the states thereunder; and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all acts of congress passed during the present rebellion with reference to slaves, so long and so far as not repealed, modified, or held void by congress, or by decision of the supreme court; and that I will, in like manner, abide by, and faithfully support all proclamations of the president, made during the existing rebellion,
Edition: current; Page: [90]
having reference to slaves, so long and so far as not modified or declared void by decision of the supreme court. So help me God."

—The following classes of persons were excepted: civil or diplomatic officers, army officers above the rank of colonel, and naval officers above the rank of lieutenant, in the confederate service, all who had left judicial stations or seats in congress, or had resigned commissions under the United States, to aid the rebellion, and all who had treated federal colored soldiers or their officers otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war. March 26, 1864, a supplementary proclamation explained that the first proclamation was not intended to embrace prisoners of war.

—II. May 29, 1865, president Johnson issued a proclamation offering amnesty, as in president Lincoln's first proclamation, to those who would take and keep the following oath: "I,——————, do solemnly swear, or affirm, in presence of almighty God, that I will hence-forth faithfully support and defend the constitution of the United States and the union of the states thereunder, and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves. So help me God."

—In addition to the classes named in the proclamation of Dec. 8, 1863, the following classes were excepted: all foreign agents of the confederate states, graduates of West Point or Annapolis in the rebel army, governors of states in rebellion, deserters, privateersmen, Canada raiders, prisoners of war, persons worth over $20,000, and persons who had already taken and broken the oath required. Persons in the excepted classes were to make special application for pardons. A bill to repeal the act of July 17, 1862, above mentioned, was passed by the house Dec. 3, 1866, and by the senate Jan. 7, 1867, and became a law through the president's failure to sign or veto it. He preferred to treat the original act and the repealer as nullities, trenching on the president's constitutional pardoning power.

—III. Sept. 7, 1867, president Johnson issued another proclamation of amnesty. It recited the substance of former proclamations, including that of April 2, 1866, declaring the rebellion at an end, offered full amnesty to all who would take and keep the oath, above given, substituting "late" for "existing" in describing the rebellion, and excepted the following classes, "and no others": the president, vice-president, and heads of departments of the confederate government, its foreign agents, military officers above the grade of brigadier general, naval officers above the grade of captain, governors of states, all who had unlawfully treated prisoners of war, all legally held in confinement, and all parties to the assassination of president Lincoln.

—IV. July 4, 1868, by proclamation, president Johnson offered full pardon and amnesty for treason, with restoration of property rights, except as to slaves and confiscated property, to all except those who might be under indictment or presentment in any federal court. No form of oath was prescribed.

—V. Dec. 25, 1868, by proclamation, president Johnson, by virtue of the power and authority in him vested by the constitution, proclaimed and declared unconditionally and without reservation, a full pardon and amnesty for treason to all who directly or indirectly participated in the rebellion, without the formality of any oath (see RECONSTRUCTION).

—VI. By the 3rd section of the 14th amendment, which was declared in force July 28, 1868, disability to hold office was imposed on those who in higher positions had engaged in rebellion, with permission to congress to remove such disability. After the disability of many persons had been removed by acts of congress applicable only to individual cases, the act of May 22, 1872, removed the political disability of all persons except those who had engaged in rebellion, having been members of the 36th or 37th congresses, officers in the judicial, military or naval service of the United States, or heads of departments or foreign ministers of the United States. An attempt in 1873 to make the removal universal failed.

—See Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia (1861-73), McPherson's Political History of the Rebellion and History of the Reconstruction. For the successive proclamations above referred to, see (I.) Dec. 8, 1863, and March 26, 1864, 13 Stat. at Large (38th cong.), appendix 1, vii, xi; (II.) May 29, 1865, McPherson's History of the Reconstruction, 9; (III.-V.) Sept. 7, 1867; July 4, and Dec. 25, 1868, 15 Stat. at Large, 699, 702, 711. The act of July 17, 1862, is in 12 Stat. at Large, 589 (§13); the act of May 22, 1872, is in 17 Stat. at Large, 142.

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

ANAM

ANAM, Empire of. (See COCHIN CHINA.)

ANARCHY

ANARCHY. According to the etymology of the word, anarchy would mean absence of all government, of all political authority; but in evil as well as in good, the mind may conceive an extreme limit which can scarcely be ever attained in reality. Therefore history does not present, perhaps, a single complete example of anarchy, in which each individual was found in full and entire independence of all external authority.

—Since sociableness is one of the essential characteristics of man, we find in every movement tending to disintegrate society, elements of one or more new associations; and from the moment that through one cause or another a government is overthrown, if it is not replaced by a new one, the citizens group themselves in fractions more or less numerous around an authority which springs up because of the situation. Instability of public power is the peculiar mark of anarchy, whether governments embracing the whole of the country but representing different ideas rapidly succeed one another, or whether the nation is divided into several fragments hostile to one another. This state of things may appear all at once and sometimes when it is least expected, but the causes of the evil are almost always of remote origin, and should be carefully distinguished from the accidents which determine
Edition: current; Page: [91]
the outbreak.

—The existence of a political society implies a common object, and as soon as the members of such a society have ceased to agree on the object or the means of attaining it, we may say that the germ or commencement of anarchy is present. Anarchy, then, exists long in the minds of men before it reveals itself in facts, and it may be referred to two principal causes: disagreement in beliefs or opinions and antagonism of interests.

—These two causes operate almost simultaneously; but even when it is the principal motive of the fomenters of anarchy, interest, if not altogether concealed, is generally relegated to an inferior place, for men when acting collectively make it a point to rise, at least in appearance, above the level of vulgar interests, for which they are willing to sacrifice so much individually, and to connect the cause for which they are struggling with some great principle in politics, morality, or religion.

—In republics, the ambition of citizens who wish to get possession of supreme power, and in monarchies the ambition of princes who can come to the throne only through change in the regular order of succession, have more than once been the apparent cause of anarchy; but if a close examination is made, it will be seen that these ambitious persons merely profited by the disagreements of people, or by an antagonism of interests, and that there was in the condition of the country a greater cause of anarchy, the effects of which were merely rendered more speedy and intense by the personal action of these ambitious men. It is the same, to a certain extent, with the weaknesses inherent in every political constitution; they do not become stumbling blocks until men cease to understand each other.

—Nevertheless there are some of these weaknesses which may be considered as a sure cause of anarchy, for the reason that, at a given moment, they are certain to lead to serious differences among the citizens of a state. Very large states contain in themselves the germs of anarchy, on account of the almost absolute impossibility of keeping so many diverse interests in harmony for any great length of time, and of establishing between the inhabitants of countries long strangers to one another the community of ideas necessary to preserve a sufficient force of cohesion between all the different parts of such an empire.

—In case anarchy arises from the abnormal territorial extension of a state, it is often the prelude to a social dissolution, but there are other cases in which it comes solely from a too rapid transformation of the conditions of existence of a political society. Then instead of coming peacefully, progress is made amid profound convulsions caused by the struggle between old and new ideas.

—No matter what the conditions of its appearance, anarchy is always a great evil. Not only does it decrease the security of person and property, if it does not annihilate them altogether, it also destroys confidence, dries up the sources of labor; and the misery it produces renders men the victims of evil passions and more accessible to the influences of faction; but the many sufferings it causes individuals and the trouble which it introduces into the economy of society, are generally of less significance than the disturbances which it produces in the moral order. Men are thus subjected to trials from which they rarely come forth with any advantage to themselves. In times of anarchy we witness some rare examples of political virtue, of civil courage and moral force, but at the same time a multitude of facts calculated to injure the public conscience. In the fever which seizes on all minds, notions of good and evil, of the just and the unjust, become obscured. Everything is judged and decided with the blindness and rage of passion. Lassitude and disgust are certain to follow this state of violence, and the necessity of calm, order and repose becomes so imperative that it almost always leads to revolutions fatal to public liberty. Happy the people whose liberties do not totally perish in these fatal crises, and who look for safety to a power intelligent enough to know how properly to limit the dictatorial authority with which general confidence has invested it.

—The means of preventing or putting an end to anarchy necessarily vary according to an infinity of circumstances, and it is the great art of the statesman to discern those best adapted to the time and to the character of the nation; but in many cases it is with anarchy as with acute diseases, where nature and time do more to cure the patient than the skill of the physician.

—May not anarchy which is a very great evil, become a very great good? Such is the question raised by a celebrated writer, M. Proudhon, and he did not hesitate to answer it in the affirmative. If we understand him aright, the an-archy of M. Proudhon is nothing but self-government carried to its extremist limits, and the last step in the progress of human reason. According to him, men will at last acknowledge that, instead of disputing and fighting over questions of which, in the majority of cases, they know nothing, and instead of seeking to enslave each other, they would do better to accept the law of labor frankly and join hands to triumph over the numerous obstacles which nature opposes to their well-being. In this new order of things nations would be nothing more than groups of producers bound together by close ties of common interest. Politics, as hitherto understood, would have no further raison d'être, and an-archy, that is to say, the disappearance of all political authority, would be the result of this transformation of human society in which all questions to be solved would have a purely economic character. Long ago J. B. Say advanced the opinion that the functions of the state should be reduced to the performance of police duties. If so reduced there would be but one step needed to reach the an-archy of M. Proudhon—suppression of the police power.

L. FOUBERT.

ANCIEN RÉGIME

ANCIEN RÉGIME. The ancien régime, the old régime, might be defined feudalism in its decrepitude. So long as feudalism was a living
Edition: current; Page: [92]
reality, so long as it constituted a form of government, the people who were oppressed by it more or less, endured it as a necessary evil. They thought, perhaps, that the social order in which they were living, was the condition natural to man. But when gun-powder, the printing press, the discovery of America, and a thousand other inventions and discoveries, had raised the intellectual level of a great number of men and formed a class of citizens well-to-do and enlightened; when the concentration of political power in the hands of a sovereign had lowered his vassals to the rank of subjects, undistinguished from the masses except by a vain title, sometimes humiliating and sometimes detrimental to others, sentence of condemnation was passed on feudalism. The object of the revolution of 1789, was to wipe it out entirely.

—It was because the ancient political and social condition of things was destroyed at a single blow, and because the change was brusque, that the term ancien régime came into use. If, in France, as elsewhere, the abuses had disappeared one by one, in an almost imperceptible manner, the contrast between the past and the present would have been less striking, and there would scarcely have been occasion to say anything about it. The middle ages had been replaced in other countries than France by the modern era, but in them the transition was made without conflict. The result was that hatred between the representatives of the ancien régime and the modern order of things is less profound in those countries or, at least, has not had time to manifest itself in violence.

—The idea entertained at present, by the masses of the ancien régime is vague enough. It appears to them as a mist filled with nobles and privileged priests, tithes, duties and services, and with a number of other disagreeable things. The ancien régime is at present a scarecrow made use of in France, by parties, to influence ignorant minds. Enlightened men know that it is forever dead, and that it was but a corpse when the revolution buried it for all time. Humanity never retraces its steps.

MAURICE BLOCK.

ANDORRA

ANDORRA, Republic of. A small independent state situated on the southern slope of the Pyrences between the French department of Ariége and the Spanish province of Lerida, having an area of 450 to 460 square kilometres, with a population of about 12,000. The republic of Andorra (Val d' Andorre) is under the protection of France which divides the suzerainty with the bishop of Urgel, in Spain, who exercises episcopal jurisdiction, assigns priests to the parishes, names one of the provosts and receives 450 francs yearly. France appoints the other provost and (alternately with the bishop of Urgel) the civil judge. A tribute of 960 francs is paid to France, but in return the republic enjoys certain customs-privileges.

—The government of the republic is carried on by the sovereign council, the 24 members of which are elected for life by the citizens. The council is presided over by a syndic, elected also for life by its members. The syndic is charged with executive power; the provosts and the civil judge with the administration of justice. The provost named by France must belong to the department of Ariége. The term of office is not fixed. The term of office of the provost appointed by the bishop of Urgel lasts only three years. He must be a citizen of Andorra.

—The revenues of the republic are derived from rents from the communal pasturages, from personal and land taxes. As all officers are unsalaried these revenues are intended to discharge the tributes to France and the bishop of Urgel.

—All citizens are obliged to bear arms and to come together at the summons of the provost to maintain order and public tranquillity.

ANHALT

ANHALT. The duchies, formerly principalities of Auhalt, were 4 in number during several centuries. In 1793 the extinction of the line of Zerbst took place, in 1847 that of Kæthen, and in 1863 that of Bernburg; so that now the line of Dessau has reunited all the country of Anhalt. The duchy of Anhalt forms a part of the German empire. (See GERMAN EMPIRE). It has an area of 869 English square miles with a population of above 213,565 according to the census of Dec. 1, 1875, mostly protestants. The duchies of Anhalt had even in the time of the Holy Roman empire a common diet, and their princes had formed a family compact stipulating for reciprocal rights of succession, and according precedence to the eldest among them. In 1848, these bonds became relaxed, each duchy constituted itself apart from the others, and provided itself with legislative chambers, on a democratic basis. But since 1850 certain democratic provisions were repealed and, on Nov. 4, 1851, an order of the duke of Anhalt Dessau, annulled the constitutional act of 1848. The old state of things changed somewhat by the orders of July 18, and Aug. 31, 1859, has been reestablished, and these orders combined with the family pact of 1635, make up the constitution of the duchy.

—The duke who enjoys the title of highness (hoheit) possesses all political power, but he enacts laws only with the concurrence of the estates when he consults also in other important affairs.

—The assembled diet is composed of 36 members. Of these 12 represent the nobility and great land-holders, 12 the towns and 12 the rural population. The representatives of the nobility are elected for life by their peers. The 12 deputies from the towns are the mayors of the 4 chief towns, and 8 common councilmen, elected for 6 years from among all the municipal bodies. The country members are chosen also for 6 years by the village mayors (schulze), either from their own body or among the rural proprietors.

—To be eligible a person must be at least 30 years old, profess the Christian religion, have civil and political rights, and have lived in the country at
Edition: current; Page: [93]
least 3 years. The diet assembles at least once in 3 years. Its sessions are not public. During the intervals between the sessions, business is done by a permanent committee of 9 persons elected by the diet. This committee is assisted by 2 jurists.

—Municipal administration (law of March 1, 1852,) accords to the communes the right of self-government under the supervision of the state. The communes are represented by a municipal body, composed in the towns of a burgomaster, and in the villages of a mayor (schulze), assisted by a common council and, in important affairs, by an assembly of communal delegates. The burgomaster and the common councilmen of towns are elected for 12 years. The delegates of communes, the mayors and the common councilmen of villages for 6 years. The local police is generally under the burgomaster or the schulze, but in the neighborhood of the great estate of a nobleman, or a public domain, the proprietor of that estate or the farmer of the domain, may be charged with it.

—The internal finances of the duchies of Anhalt, both in income and outgo are about 2,213,000 thalers.

—The debt of the duchy in 1879 amounted to 7,445,417 marks.

—The army of Anhalt is assimilated to that of Prussia. The contingent is one man out of a hundred, not including the landwehr.

—Agriculture, the raising of cattle, the forests and mines (iron, silver, lead, coal) are the chief sources of wealth.

—A number of hands are employed in woolen and linen industries. Commerce is relatively important, the transportation of merchandise is facilitated by the navigation of the Elbe and the Saale and by about 85 kilometres of railroad. The bank of Dessau has a capital of 4,000,000 thalers. The central bank of Germany 50,000,000, the institution of credit for industry and commerce, at Dessau, a capital of 8,000,000. These establishments are a proof of great commercial activity.

M. BLOCK.

ANNEXATION

ANNEXATION (IN GENERAL). If this word has any political meaning, it can only be applied to acquisition of territory without armed conflict. Annexation differs, therefore, from conquest, but it is not always agreed to expressly, by the country annexed. In 1845 Texas requested to be annexed to the United States. In 1859 and the following years, certain Italian provinces consented to their annexation to the kingdom of Piedmont. In Germany, after the war of 1866, states were annexed to Prussia without any consultation with their inhabitants, and notwithstanding the minatory tendencies of Germany. The autonomy of these states was extinguished against the will of a part of their inhabitants. The war of 1870-71 seems to have had the effect of hastening assimilation.

—The fate of annexed countries is merged in that of the state of which they form a part. Sometimes they are allowed to retain their legislation and previous structure, (Prussia); at other times, means are taken to hasten their fusion with the state to which they are annexed, into a homogeneous whole, (Italy). Annexations do not seem to raise now, as they once did, questions of a grave international character. We might almost believe that nations had now become less jealous of each other. But in such matters there is no general rule. Each case admits of circumstances and therefore of consequences, and a solution peculiar to itself.

M. BLOCK.

ANNEXATIONS

ANNEXATIONS (IN U. S. HISTORY). By the treaty of 1783 "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz, New Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free, sovereign, and independent states; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claim to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof." The nominal boundaries of many of the states, as constituted by their charters, extended to the Pacific ocean; but in practice they ceased at the Mississippi. Beyond that river the sovereignty, by discovery, settlement and active exercise, was vested in the king of Spain. Before the end of the eighteenth century all the territory west of the present boundary of the states above named had been ceded by them to the United States, (see TERRITORIES), and the Union consisted of the thirteen original states, with Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, afterward admitted, and the territory (see ORDINANCE OF1787) comprised within the limits of the Atlantic ocean, British America, the Mississippi river, Louisiana, the gulf of Mexico, and Florida. For these states and this territory the Union had been made. The objections to the extension of the Union, without the unanimous consent of the "original partners," are elsewhere given (see SECESSION, I.; UNITED STATES); only the successive processes by which the extension was accomplished will be considered at present.

—I. LOUISIANA. One of the earliest physical problems with which American statesmen were called to deal was found in the position and necessities of the emigrants who had crossed the Alleghanies and were beginning to fill the valley of Mississippi. If they were to be permanently retained in the Union it was essential that some easier communication should be formed between them and the older states, and that they should not be annoyed by Spanish restrictions upon the free navigation of the Mississippi and its affluents. All through the closing hours of the revolution, Washington's attention was drawn to this question, and, in 1784, a tour to Pittsburgh and a personal examination of the Alleghanies convinced him that, by deepening the Potomac and the James on one side, and the head waters of the Ohio on the other, canal communication between the east and the west was possible. This scheme, which would have offered engineering difficulties then almost insurmountable, had gone so far as incorporation
Edition: current; Page: [94]
by Virginia and Maryland, when Washington reluctantly allowed himself to be withdrawn from it by the voice of the whole country to the presidency of the convention of 1787, and afterward of the United States.

—It had long been the fixed policy of Spain to exclude all foreign commerce from the Mississippi. She had refused, in 1780-2, to make a treaty with the United States, the main reason for her refusal being Minister Jay's demand for the free navigation of the Mississippi. She had then even designed, as appears from one of Dr. Franklin's letters to congress, to confine the United States to the territory east of the Alleghames, on the ground of a proclamation by the king of Great Britain in 1763, forbidding his North American governors to grant lands westward of the sources of the rivers falling into the Atlantic ocean. In July, 1785, when Don Diego Guardoqui, a chargé daffier, arrived at Philadelphia, the claims of Spain had been finally modified to the Florida's, all the west bank of the Mississippi, the east bank to a point considerably north of the present southerly boundary of the state of Mississippi, and an exclusive navigation thence to the mouth of the river. The commercial states of the north were anxious for a treaty of commerce with Spain even at the price of the abandonment of the interests of the western settlers, and Guardoqui refused a treaty on any other terms. Aug. 29, 1786, by a vote of seven northern to five southern states, the congress of the confederacy withdrew its demand for free navigation of the Mississippi, and before Oct. 6, their secretary of foreign affairs, Jay, had agreed upon an article by which the claim was suspended for twenty-five years, though not formally relinquished. But, while congress had been deliberating, a nation had been forming in the Mississippi valley; and the remonstrance's, public and private, of its inhabitants were so emphatic, and in some instances so violent, that in September, 1788, congress in desperation relegated the whole subject to the new federal government, which was to assemble in March, 1789. Negotiations with Spain were dropped until February, 1793, when Messrs. Carmichael and Short again attempted, but in vain, to make a treaty. The year 1795 was more auspicious. Spain was exhausted by war with the French republic; her virtual ruler, Manuel Goody, prince of the peace, was aware that hostile expeditions against New Orleans, under Genet's directions, had, in 1793, with difficulty been suppressed by the federal government, (see GENTE, CITIZEN), and, Oct. 27, 1795, Thomas Pinkney, envoy extraordinary, succeeded in negotiating a treaty of friendship, boundaries, and navigation. Its important features, in this connection, are in the fourth and twenty-second articles:

—Art. 4. ***** "And his Catholic majesty has likewise agreed that the navigation of the said river (Mississippi), in its whole breadth, from its source to the ocean, shall be free only to his subjects and the citizens of the United States, unless he should extend this privilege to the subjects of other powers by special convention.

—Art. 22. And, in consequence of the stipulations contained in the fourth article, his Catholic majesty will permit the citizens of the United States, for the space of three years from this time, to deposit their merchandises and effects in the port of New Orleans, and to export them from thence without paying any other duty than a fair price for the hire of the stores; and his majesty promises, either to continue this permission, if he finds during that time that it is not prejudicial to the interests of Spain or, if he should not agree to continue it there, he will assign to them, on another part of the banks of the Mississippi, an equivalent establishment."

—With this article, when it was some three years later, honorably executed, the people of the west were fairly satisfied.

—By the third article of the secret treaty of St. Ildefonso, Oct. 1, 1800, in return for the erection of the kingdom of Etruria for the prince of Parma, the king of Spain's son-in-law, Spain "retrocede" to France the vast province of Louisiana, stretching from the source to the mouth of the Mississippi, and thence west to the Pacific (but see OREGON). It had belonged to France until the peace of 1763, when it was ceded to Spain in compensation for her losses during the war. By its retrocession the United States were now to be hemmed in between the two professional belligerents of Europe; and a great fleet and army, which sailed toward the end of the year 1801, ostensibly against St. Domingo, but ultimately intended to take possession of New Orleans, showed Bonaparte's design to revive there the colonial glories of the former French monarchy. April 18, 1802, president Jefferson wrote to Robert R. Livingston, minister to France, as follows: "The cession of Louisiana and the Floridas by Spain to France works most sorely on the United States. It completely reverses all the political relations of the United States, and will form a new epoch in our political course. There is on the globe one single spot the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans, through which the produce of three-eighths of our territory must pass to market. France, placing herself in that door, assumes to us the attitude of defiance, **** (and) seals the union of two nations who, in conjunction, can maintain exclusive possession of the ocean. From that moment we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation, and make the first cannon which shall be fired in Europe the signal for tearing up any settlement she (France) may have made."

—The ferment in the west, caused by the retrocession of Louisiana, was increased by the orders of the Spanish intendant, Morales, issued Oct. 2, 1802, abrogating the right of deposit, without substituting any other place for New Orleans, as the treaty of 1795 above given, required. In congress James Ross, senator from Pennsylvania, introduced resolutions authorizing the president to call out 50,000 militia and take possession of New Orleans. Intend of this, congress appropriated $2,000,000 for the purchase
Edition: current; Page: [95]
of New Orleans, and the president, Jan. 10, 1803, sent James Monroe as minister extraordinary, with discretionary powers, to co-operate with Livingston in the proposed purchase.

—Monroe found his work done to his hand. A new war between England and France was on the point of breaking out, and in such an event England's omnipotent navy would make Louisiana a worse than useless possession to France. April 11, 1803, Livingston, who had already begun a hesitating negotiation for the purchase of New Orleans alone, was suddenly invited by Napoleon to make an offer for the whole of Louisiana. On the following day Monroe arrived in Paris, and the two ministers decided to offer $10,000,000. The price was finally fixed at $15,000,000, one fourth of it to consist in the assumption by the United States of $3,750,000 worth of claims of American citizens against France. The treaty was in three conventions, all signed the same day, April 30, 1803, by Livingston and Monroe on one part, and Barbé-Marbois for France on the other. The first convention was to secure the cession, the second to ascertain the price, and the third to stipulate for the assumption by the United States of the claims above named. Its important articles in this connection are the first and third of the first convention, as follows: ART. 1. "whereas, by article the third of the treaty concluded at St. Ildefonso, the 9th Vendémiaire, an. 9 (Oct. 1, 1800), between the first consul of the French republic and his Catholic majesty it was agreed as follows: His Catholic majesty promises and engages on his part, to retrocede to the French republic, six months after the full and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations herein relative to his royal highness the duke of Parma, the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it; and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other states; and whereas, in pursuance of the treaty, and particularly of the third article, the French republic has an incontestable title to the domain and to the possession of the said territory: The first consul of the French republic, desiring to give to the United States a strong proof of his friendship, doth hereby cede to the said United States, in the name of the French republic, forever and in full sovereignty, the said territory, with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully and in the same manner as they have been acquired by the French republic in virtue of the above mentioned treaty, concluded with his Catholic majesty. ART. 3. The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess."

—The annexation of Louisiana was the source of unbounded exultation to the president and his party. Its constitutionality was at once angrily attacked by the federalists, and never defended by Jefferson. He says, in a private letter: "The constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still lese for incorporating foreign nations into our union. The executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the constitution. The legislature, in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties, and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it, and throw themselves on their country for doing for them, unauthorized, what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it. It is the case of a guardian, investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory, and saying to him when of age, 'I did this for your good; I pretend to no right to bind you; you may disavow me and I must get out of the scrape as I can; I thought it my duty to risk myself for you.' " (For the amendment, which was to cover the case, see CONSTITUTION, IV.)

—"The news of the transfer of Louisiana was like a thunder-stroke for the cabinet of Madrid, who then perceived the enormous fault it had committed in sacrificing the safety of Mexico. Florida, inclosed on both sides by the United States, was separated in the middle from the Spanish dominions, and would fall on the first occasion into the hands of its neighbors." It is supposed that, in addition to the non-fulfillment by Napoleon of essential points of the treaty of St. Ildefonso, that treaty had annexed a secret condition that France should not alienate Louisiana, and that Bonaparte had, as he frequently did in other cases, contemptuously disregarded it. It is certain that Spain refused with indignation to believe the first news of its alienation, filed a formal protest against it, and only consented to it at last after a course of unfriendly conduct, which, according to a report of a house committee in January, 1806, fully justified a declaration of war against her.

—Ratifications were to be exchanged within six months from the date of the treaty, that is, before Oct. 30, 1803. The president therefore called an early session of congress for Oct. 17, and in two days the treaty was confirmed by the senate. In the house, Oct. 25, the resolution to carry the treaty into effect was passed, by a vote of 90 to 25, over the opposition of the federalists, who maintained the unconstitutionality of the annexation on the grounds assigned by Jefferson himself above. (See SECESSION, LOUISIANA.) The province of Louisiana added 1,171,931 square miles to the area of the United States, comprising Alabama and Mississippi south of parallel 31° all Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska and Oregon; the entire territories of Dakota, Washington, Idaho and Montana; the state of Minnesota west of the Mississippi, and Kansas except the south west part south of the Arkansas; Colorado and
Edition: current; Page: [96]
the territory of Wyoming east of the Rocky mountains, and Indian territory.

—II FLORIDA. Until 1763 the eastern boundary of Louisiana was the river Perdido. When Great Britain in that year became the owner of that part of Louisiana east of the Mississippi she at once united it to Florida, and created two territories, east and west Florida, separated by the Appalachicola. By the fifth article of the treaty of 1783, "his Britannic majesty ceded and guaranteed to his Catholic majesty eastern and western Florida." Spain therefore claimed, and not without considerable appearance of reason, that she could not retrocede to France what France had not ceded to her in 1763; that Louisiana east of the Mississippi had disappeared from the map in 1763 and become a part of Florida, and that, when she retroceded "Louisiana" to France in 1800, she had no intention of ceding with it the separate territory of west Florida, acquired by her after 1763, from Great Britain. She had therefore retained Mobile, the key to the rivers of Alabama, and in its custom house levied heavy duties on goods to or from the upper country. The United States, however, claimed that, as Spain's retrocession and France's cession were, of "Louisiana, with the same extent that it had when France possessed it" (see treaty above) Louisiana's eastern boundary was now again the Perdido. To avoid war with Spain the claim was not forcibly asserted until 1810, when, the king of Spain being dethroned, and the cortes having been driven to the isle of Leon and dissolved, the hereditary government had to all appearances disappeared, and a large part of the people of west Florida, having met in convention at Baton Rouge, declared themselves independent and assumed the lone star as a symbol for their flag. Against the protests of the Spanish governor and of the British chargé d'affaires, governor Claiborne, of the territory of Orleans, was sent by the president to take possession of west Florida, and accomplished it, with the exception of the city of Mobile, late in 1810. In 1812 the Pearl river was made the eastern boundary of the state of Louisiana, and the rest of west Florida was annexed to Mississippi territory. In 1813 possession of the fort and city of Mobile, and of the whole of west Florida, was at last secured by general Wilkinson.

—Through all this period the determination of the southern states to gain east Florida also had been rapidly growing. Acts of congress of Jan. 15, and March 3, 1811, passed in secret, and first published in 1818, had authorized the president to take "temporary possession" of east Florida. The commissioners appointed under these acts, Matthews, and his successor, Mitchell, both of Georgia, had stirred up an insurrection in the coveted territory, and, when the president refused to sustain the commissioners, the state of Georgia declared Florida necessary to its peace and welfare, and practically declared war on its own private account. Its expedition, however, resulted in nothing. In 1814 general Andrew Jackson, then in command at Mobile, having, by a raid into Pensacola, driven out a British force which had settled there, restored the place to the Spanish authorities and retired. In 1818, during the Seminole war, being annoyed by Spanish assistance afforded to the Indians, Jackson again raided east Florida, captured St. Marks and Pensacola, hung Arbuthnot and Ambrister, two British subjects who had given aid and comfort to the Seminoles, as "outlaws and pirates," and again demonstrated the fact that Florida was completely at the mercy of the United States. The Spanish minister at Washington therefore signed a treaty, Feb. 22, 1819, by which Spain ceded Florida, 59,268 square miles, to the United States, in return for the payment by the latter country of claims of American citizens against Spain, amounting to $5,000,000. The ratification of Spain was only obtained in 1821, after an unsuccessful effort on her part to secure, as the price of it, the refusal of the United States to recognize the independence of the revolted Spanish-American colonies. By this treaty the western boundary of Louisiana was fixed as follows: "Beginning at the mouth of the Sabine in the gulf of Mexico; up the west bank of the Sabine to the 32nd degree of north latitude; thence north to the Red river; along the south bank of the Red river to the 100th degree of longitude east from Greenwich; thence north to the Arkansas; thence along the south bank of the Arkansas to its source; thence south or north, as the case might be, to the 42nd degree of north latitude, and along that parallel to the Pacific." As the price of Florida, therefore, the United States gave up the claim to Texas and the Rio Grande as its western boundary.

—III. TEXAS. The inevitable result of the two previous annexations was the annexation of Texas. It had been persistently claimed before 1763 by Spain; and France, though claiming it as part of Louisiana, had made only a few futile attempts to colonize it. It had been one of the ultimate objects of the Burr conspiracy. During Wilkinson's hasty preparations to defend New Orleans against Burr in October, 1806, he had agreed with the Spanish commander upon the Sabine as a provisional boundary between the Spanish and American territory, and upon the consequent suspension of the American claim to Texas as part of Louisiana; and the treaty of 1819 above mentioned made this boundary permanent, Considerable opposition, of which resolutions offered by Henry Clay were an expression, was manifested against the "alienation" by treaty of soil to which the United States had a claim, but the annexation of Florida covered all dissatisfaction in the south, and when Mexico's revolt was successful, by the treaty of Cordova, Feb. 24, 1821, "Texas and Coahuila" became one of the states of the Mexican republic.

—The Missouri struggle, (see COMPROMISES, IV.), had shown that the union of the two sections in the United States was as yet only factitious; that the operation of economic laws would inevitably drive immigration
Edition: current; Page: [97]
away from slave soil and toward the free territory of the northwest; and that, consequently, in the sectional race for the manufacture of new states and the control of the senate, the south was doomed to defeat if the Sabine remained as the boundary. Therefore, so early as 1821, the adventurous and lawless population of the southwest, under the direction or with the silent sympathy of far-seeing southern leaders, began systematic efforts to pierce the barrier of Mexican exclusiveness and effect an entrance into Texas. Under the guise of persecuted American Roman Catholics, enterprising men obtained land grants from Mexico and filled them with settlers who had at least as much reverence for Catholicism as for any other form of religion. Offers were made in 1827 and 1829 by Clay and Van Buren, successively secretaries of state, of $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 for Texas, but without effect. In 1833 Texas had grown so far in population that it disdained to be longer a part of Coahuila, and by convention, April 1, formed a Mexican state constitution of its own. In 1835 the Mexican congress abolished all the state constitutions, and created a dictator; and, March 2, 1836, Texas put into practice the doctrine of secession by declaring its independence of Mexico. After a brief war, marked by the inhuman Mexican massacres of Goliad and the Alamo, Houston, the Texan commander, with 700 men, met Santa Anna, the Mexican president, with 5,000 men, at the Sau Jacinto, April 10, and totally defeated him. Santa Anna, a captive and in mortal fear, was glad to obtain his freedom by signing a treaty-which acknowledged the independence of the republic of Texas, but which Mexico naturally refused to ratify. In March, 1837, the United States, and, soon after, England, France and Belgium, recognized the new republic, which may thereafter be fairly considered independent, though never acknowledged as such by Mexico.

—The finances of Texas early fell into extreme disorder. Her government had borrowed and expended so recklessly that borrowing would no longer avail, and its operations had almost come to a stand-still for sheer want of money. Under these circumstances annexation was as desirable to Texas as to the south, and in August, 1837, by her minister at Washington, Texas made application to the executive for membership in the United States. A proposition to that effect was introduced in the senate, by Preston, of South Carolina, and tabled by a vote of 24 to 14. The matter then rested for some years, and Texas, undisturbed by Mexico's continued refusal to recognize her, proceeded in the prodigal sale and distribution throughout the south and southwest of a vast mass of land warrants, whose owners were at once converted into advocacy of Texas and annexation. Jan. 10, 1843, Gilmer, member of congress from Virginia, in a letter to a Baltimore newspaper, eloquently appealed to the people to annex Texas in order to forestall Great Britain in so doing; and his appeal was seconded by the legislatures of various southern states. From this time Texas annexation became a game, skillfully played in partnership by the southern politicians, who wished to increase the number of southern states, and the Texas land and scrip speculators, who wished to make their worthless ventures profitable. A letter was obtained from ex-president Jackson, March 12, 1843, warmly counseling immediate annexation. The democratic national convention was put off from December, 1843, until May, 1844, and in the interval Van Buren, the chosen candidate of the northern democracy, was formally questioned by letter as to his position on annexation. April 20, 1844, Van Buren declared against it, as also did Clay, the leading whig candidate, April 17. May 17, the democratic convention met at Baltimore, and as a preliminary adopted the rule of the conventions of 1832 and 1835, which has since been the rule in all democratic conventions, that a nomination should only be by a two-thirds vote. This made Van Buren's nomination impossible, and insured to the southern minority the ultimate choice of an annexation candidate. On the 8th ballot Van Buren was withdrawn, having fallen from 146 to 104 out of 266 votes, and on the next ballot Polk was nominated. Not only was the candidate strongly in favor of immediate annexation; the platform also warmly demanded the re-occupation of Oregon, and the re-annexation of Texas.

—In the meantime, an annexation treaty had actually been concluded with Texas, April 12, 1844, by Calhoun, whom Tyler, in the course of his drift back toward the democratic party, had called into his cabinet (see ADMINISTRATIONS, as secretary of state, and who had declared his only object in the cabinet to be the annexation of Texas; but it was rejected by the senate by a vote of 16 ayes to 35 nays. This treaty fixed the western boundary of Texas, as Texas herself had done in 1836, at the Rio Grande, thus taking in the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, which had been settled by Spaniards since 1694 as the province of Coahuila, and had been peaceably in Spanish and Mexican possession ever since, though Texas had attempted some formal exercises of jurisdiction over it. In this disputed territory lay the germs of the Mexican war.

—In the presidential election of 1844 votes were gained for Polk in the north by the demand for the re-occupation of Oregon, and by the cry of "Polk, Dallas and the tariff of 1842," (see TARIFF; but in the south the whole question turned on Texas, and "Texas or disunion" became a common toast. Polk's election was accomplished in part by the vote which the liberty part, (see ABOLITION, II.), threw away on Birney, which would have given New York and Michigan to Clay, and in part by indubitable fraudulent voting in Plaquemines parish, in Louisiana, which gave the vote of that state to Polk. Nevertheless, his success was taken as a popular indorsement of Texas annexation, and in the next session of congress the doubtful members hurried to join the popular side. Jan. 25, 1845,
Edition: current; Page: [98]
a joint resolution was passed by the house, by a vote of 120 to 97, that "Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the republic of Texas, may be erected into a new state, to be called "the state of Texas," the consent being given on three conditions, 1st, that evidence of the formation of the new state should be sent to congress for final action on or before Jan. 1, 1846; 2nd, that the public property of the republic should be transferred to the United States; and 3rd, and most important, (see DRED SCOTT CASE, KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL, COMPROMISES, V.), as follows: "Third: New states of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to the said state of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution; and such states as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire. And in such state or states as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude, (except for crime), shall be prohibited." To some of the senators this formation of a new state out of territory which had never been formally annexed seemed utterly unconstitutional, and an amendment, prepared by senator Walker, of Wisconsin, was added, authorizing the president, if he should deem it advisable, to first make a treaty of annexation with Texas. The whole was then passed by a vote of 27 to 25, and agreed to by the house. No such treaty was ever made. Tyler leaped at the chance of ending his presidency with éclat, and on the last day of his term sent a special messenger who secured the unanimous assent, June 18, of the Texas congress, to annexation, which action was ratified, July 4, by a popular convention. A joint resolution was passed in the house, Dec. 16, 1845, by 141 to 56, and in the senate, Dec. 22, by 31 to 13, for the admission of Texas as a state, and its annexation was complete without the formality of a treaty. The power of annexation by treaty, which had been doubted, but exercised, in 1803, had thus been carried, in 1845, to annexation even without treaty, and both by the strict constructionist party. (For the further results see WILMOT PROVISO, COMPROMISES, V.). The annexation of Texas added 376,133 square miles to the United States.

—IV. NEW MEXICO, AND UPPER CALIFORNIA. These two pieces of territory had been conquered during the Mexican war, the former, (including Utah, Nevada, and a large part of Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado), by Kearney, and the latter by the navy under commodore Stockton and a small land force under Fremont, and both were held as conquered territory until the end of the war. From the opening of hostilities, the acquisition, by force or purchase of a liberal tract of Mexican territory as "indemnity for the past and security for the future," had been a principal object of the war, and at its close, by the treaty known as the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed Feb. 2, 1848, by Mr. Nicholas P. Trist and three Mexican commissioners, and ratified by the senate March 10, the territory above named was added to the United States, the price being fixed at $15,000,000, besides the assumption by the United States of $3,250,000 in claims of American citizens against Mexico. The territory thus annexed, including that part of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande, which was claimed by Texas, and for which Texas was afterwards paid $10,000,000 by the United States, added to the area of the United States 545,783 square miles.

—V. GADSDEN PURCHASE. During the next five years disputes arose as to the present southern part of Arizona, the Mesilla valley, from the Gila river to Chihuahua. A Mexican army was marched into it by Santa Anna and preparations were begun for a renewal of war. By the Gadsden treaty, Dec. 30, 1853, so called from its negotiator, the United States, at the price of $10,000,000, obtained the disputed territory, as well as a right of transit for troops, mails, and merchandise over the isthmus of Tehuantepec. By this annexation, 45,535 square miles were added to the United States.

—VI. ALASKA. This territory, distant about 400 miles from the United States, and valuable only for its fur-bearing animals, was first claimed by Russia by right of discovery; and by right of possession of opposite shores, Siberia and Alaska, (or Aliaska), Russia also claimed the northern Pacific as a sort of inland water. By treaty of March 30, 1867, ratified by the senate in special session June 20, 1867, Russia ceded the whole of this territory, 577,390 square miles, to the United States for $7,200,000.

—Summary:

Square Miles

United States in 1783...

827,844

Louisiana (1803)...

1,171,931

Florida (1819)...

59,263

Texas (1845)...

376,133

Mexican cossion (1848)...

543,783

Gadsden parchase (1853)...

45,535

Alaska (1867)...

577,390

Total...

3,603,884

The boundaries of the United States were established by art. 2 of the provisional treaty of Nov. 30, 1782, (8 Stat. at Large, 54), and by art. 2 of the definitive treaty of Sept. 3, 1783, (8 Stat. at Large, 80).

—I. See Barbé-Marbois' History of Louisiana and its Cession; Gayarre's History of Louisiana; Monette's History of the Mississippi Valley; 1 Lyman's Diplomacy of the United States, 107; 5 Hildreth's United States, 449, 480; 3 Benton's Debates of Congress; 2 von Holst's United States, 548; 3 Jefferson's Works, (edit. 1829), 491, 512; and earlier authorities under SECESSION. The Spanish treaty of Oct. 27, 1795, is in 8 Mat at Large, 138; the Louisiana treaty and subsidiary conventions of April 30, 1803, are in 8 Stat at
Edition: current; Page: [99]
Large, 200, 206, 208. II. See 6 Hildreth's United States, 223, 658-712; 2 Lyman's Diplomacy, 126; 4 Adams' Memoirs of John Quincy Adams; 4 Calhoun's Works; and other authorities under JACKSON, ANDREW; FLORIDA. The Florida treaty of Feb. 22, 1819, is in 8 Stat. at Large, 252; the acts of Jan. 15 and March 3, 1811, are in 3 Stat. at Large, 471, 472. III. See 2 von Holst's United States, 551; 1 Greeley's American Conflict, 147; Wise's Seven Decades; 7, 11 Adams' Memoirs of John Quincy Adams; Jay's Review of the Mexican War; 4 Calhoun's Works; 2 Benton's Thirty Years View, 94, 581; 2 Statesman's Manual; 15, 16 Benton's Debates of Congress; and authorities under TEXAS. The resolution to annex Texas, March 1, 1845, is in 5 Stat. at Large, 797; the resolution to admit Texas, Dec. 29, 1845, is in 9 Stat. at Large, 108. IV. See authorities last cited, and those under CALIFORNIA, and COMPROMISES, V. The Mexican treaty of Jan. 12, 1828, (art. 2, defining boundary), is in 8 Stat. at Large, 374; the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Feb. 2, 1848, is in 9 Stat. at Large, 922. V. The Gadsden treaty, of Dec. 30, 1853, is in 10 Stat. at Large, 1031. VI. The Russian treaty of March 30, 1867, is in 15 Stat. at Large, 539.

ANTI-FEDERAL PARTY

ANTI-FEDERAL PARTY (IN U. S. HISTORY). At the close of the revolution there was but one party in the United States, the American whigs. They had no organization and needed none, their former opponents, the loyalists or tories, having been banished, killed, or converted. The state legislatures had taken the opportunity offered by the confusion of the revolution to seize, by the articles of confederation, upon the powers which the king had abandoned, and which the national popular will was not yet sufficiently educated to assume (see CONFEDERATION, ARTICLES OF). In this interregnum and in this seizure all America had acquiesced, with the exception of a few advanced thinkers like Hamilton; and the mass of the population was entirely agricultural, democratic, particularist, devoted to the worship of their separate commonwealths, and disposed to look upon the central or federal government very much as they had but recently looked upon the king. The war practically ended in 1780, but a space of seven years is marked by great development in the United States. Before 1787, in spite of lawlessness and bad government, commerce and the commercial class had already reached respectable proportions, a distinct creditor class had been formed with capital to lend, and in the south property owners had learned their weakness and their needs. These three classes, uniting for the control of the convention of 1787, had really split off into a new party (see FEDERAL PARTY), leaving the mass of the people to their particularist prejudices.

—As the old government had been strictly federal, or league, in its nature, it would seem natural at first sight that those who favored its retention or modification should take the name of federalist, and Gerry, of Massachusetts, and a few others, made some efforts to secure this party title, and give their opponents that of anti-federalists or nationalists. But all parties were quick to perceive that the essence of the constitution was its creation of a strong federal government; and all who were opposed to this new and portentous appearance in American politics, all who considered the constitution fantastic, theoretical, and experimental, and a distant attempt to ape European monarchy, all the local magnates who feared to be overshadowed by the new central power, all the small farmers who dreaded the addition of federal to state taxes, at once accepted the name of anti-federalists and opposed the ratification of the constitution, in and out of the conventions.

—In Rhode Island and North Carolina the opposition was successful, (see CONSTITUTION III.), but in the other states it was overcome. In Pennsylvania the anti-federalists protested that they had been unfairly treated. In the legislature, which was slightly federalist, the resolution for a state convention gave but ten days for the choice of delegates, thus cutting off the anti-federalists of western Pennsylvania from all chance to participate. To secure a longer interval of time, the opposition absented themselves, and left the house without a quorum, but two of their number were seized, carried into the house, and held in their seats while the quorum thus secured passed the resolution. In consequence, so the protest alleged, but 13,000 of the 70,000 voters in the state were represented in the convention. September 5, a separate anti-federalist convention at Harrisburgh demanded a second federal convention to revise the constitution.

—Had the anti-federalists followed the concerted plan of ratifying the constitution on condition of its revision by a second federal convention, their general success could hardly have been prevented. But they saw fit to oppose ratification altogether, and, as the federalists were wise enough to yield to ratification on the "Massachusetts plan" of recommending amendments, stiff-necked opposition to the plan indorsed by Washington and Franklin resulted only in general failure and utter demoralization, for the time, of the anti-federal party. When the 1st congress met, the active, energetic and skillful federalist leaders secured control of almost every department of the new government, yielding to their opponents only the speakership of the house, the attorney generalship, and the state department.

—But it must not be supposed that all who were classed as federalists in 1787-8 were really wedded to federalist doctrines as afterward developed by Hamilton. Every convention contained many delegates who, like Madison, Edmond Randolph, and R. R. Livingston, while opposed by nature to a strong federal government, were equally opposed by education and experience to the rickety rump which then figured as a congress, and to the articles of confederation which had stamped upon it its peculiar character. It
Edition: current; Page: [100]
was natural that such delegates should urge ratification as an escape from present and pressing evils; Jefferson himself, who had at first pronounced against any constitution without a bill of rights, soon came to say—"It has my hearty prayers." But it was natural also that these men, when the constitution had been adopted, should aim at a construction of its terms which should not give the new government extensive power. The consequent divergence between real and temporary federalists became evident about 1791-3, when the latter again coalesced with the former anti-federalists under a new name (see FEDERAL PARTY). In 1793 Madison and Hamilton, who had made common cause in 1787-8, were already attacking one another in the newspapers, each significantly quoting his former associate's language in The Federalist.

—Throughout the 1st congress the anti-federalists made but two essays at party contest. Their opposition to Hamilton's plan for settling the public debt (see FEDERAL PARTY) was defeated by Hamilton, assisted by Jefferson, (see CAPITAL, NATIONAL), and their opposition to his scheme of a national bank (see BANK CONTROVERSIES) was equally unsuccessful. They also very generally opposed the imposition of any higher duties on imports for the benefit of manufactures, but their opposition was without concert and without success. The first session of the 2nd congress has many symptoms of the revival of the anti-federalists as a popular and strict construction party. Their opposition to bounties to the cod-fisheries, and to the senate's proposition to put the head of the president for the time being upon the coins, took a fairly organized form, and by the end of the session the tone of discussion had so risen that allusions were made to the existence of a "corrupt faction" in congress. In the second session party organization took on unmistakable form. The debates on the increase of the army show that the anti-federalists had come to regard Hamilton as the arch-priest of broad construction, and themselves as his appointed adversaries. Toward the end of the session they attempted without success to censure his management of the treasury and his language to the house. Their former party name was no longer entirely applicable, for they were not now opposed to the federal government or to the constitution which had created it. On the contrary, by a process which was very natural, however odd at first sight, they, who had at first absolutely opposed the constitution through their fear of a strong and tyrannical federal government, had now become, through the same fear, the most pronounced champions of the exact and literal language of the constitution, and opponents of all attempts to extend its meaning by ingenious interpretations of its terms. In other words, they were now a strict construction, conservative party (see CONSTRUCTION, I.).

—Jefferson had returned from France in 1789 wholly engrossed by the opening scenes of the French revolution, and personally triumphant in the prospect of the coming success of the principles which he had formulated in the declaration of independence. Very soon after his return he seems to have become fixed in the belief that the conflict between government by the people and government of the people was to be transferred to America also, and that the Hamilton school, under the guise of broad construction, was aiming at monarchy. He soon impressed his belief upon others, and before the summer of 1792 he was able to refer in vague terms to the opposition to Hamilton as a "republican" party, in contrast to the "monarchical" federalists. He was emphatic, at first, in excluding the anti-federalists from the "republican" party, acknowledging them only as allies; but Washington's neutrality proclamation in 1793 brought all the former anti-federalists so prominently forward as friends of the French republic that Jefferson perforce accepted as political facts the death of the anti-federal party and the existence, for the future, of but two parties, the federal party and the republican, or, as it was soon enlarged, the democratic-republican party.

ANTI-MASONRY

ANTI-MASONRY (IN U. S. HISTORY). I. ANTI-MASONIC PARTY. The society of free masons was established in the United States during the last century, and before 1820 had enrolled among its members very many of the political leaders of the country. In 1826 William Morgan, of Batavia, Genesee country, New York, having prepared a book for publication which purported to expose the secrets of the fraternity, was arrested, and a judgment of obtained against him for debt. Upon his release, Sept. 12, he was seized and conveyed in a close carriage to Niagara. No further trace of the missing man was ever found, in spite of liberal rewards offered for him or his abductors. The affair caused intense excitement throughout western New York. Charges were made that the conspiracy to abduct embraced all the leading free-masons of that section of the State; that these had systematically thwarted all investigation; that members of the society placed their secret obligations above those of citizenship or official duty; and that they were necessarily unfit and unfaithful public servants. In town and county elections candidates who refused to resign their membership in the society soon found a strong, though unorganized, anti-masonic vote against them, and in August, 1828, the national republican party in New York, carefully nominated state candidates who were not free-masons. But an anti-masonic state convention, at Utica, a few days later, nominated candidates pledged against free-masonry, and polled 33,345 votes out of a total of 276,583. In 1830 they entirely displaced the national republicans in New York, as
Edition: current; Page: [101]
the opponents of the democrats, and, as Jackson, the democratic leader, was a free-mason, steps were taken by his opponents to extend the anti-masonic organization to other states, in hopes of thus gaining the small percentage of votes necessary to defeat the democrats in the national election. The attempt was a failure, in one sense, since the number of national republican free-masons who were alienated to the democracy more than counterbalanced the anti-masonic accession; but it resulted in the establishment of the anti-masons as the controlling anti-democratic organization in Pennsylvania and Vermont, and as a strong local party in Massachusetts and Ohio. In the state of New York, William H. Seward, Millard Fillmore, and Thurlow Weed, first appeared in politics as anti-masonic leaders.

—In February, 1830, a state convention at Albany, had decided in favor of a national anti-masonic nominating convention, and this decision was confirmed by a national convention, in September, 1830. John Quincy Adams had already lost control of the national republicans, and Clay had begun to develop some of that popularity with the party which afterward made the whigs almost a distinctive Clay party. In the hope of forcing Clay, who was a free-mason, out of the field, the anti-masons held their convention first of the parties, at Baltimore, in September, 1831, and nominated William Wirt, of Maryland, and Amos Ellmaker, of Pennsylvania, as presidential candidates. The national republicans, however, persisted in nominating Clay, and Wirt and Ellmaker received the electoral vote of Vermont alone. The anti-masons made no further effort to act as a distinct national party, and the rise of the whig party soon after absorbed their organization, except in Pennsylvania, where they retained existence in alliance with the whigs until about 1840, and in 1835, through democratic dissensions, succeeded in electing their candidate for governor, Joseph Ritner. But while acting as a part of the whig party, the anti masonic element was sufficiently strong and distinct to force the nomination of Harrison, in 1835 and 1839, instead of Clay. (See WHIG PARTY.) The anti-masons and the American party have been the only instances in our political history of an attempt to form a national political party not based on some controlling theory as to the proper construction of the constitution.

—II. AMERICAN PARTY. In 1868 a national convention, at Pittsburgh, formed the national Christian association, which has held annual meetings since, and now has branches in 14 states. In 1875 this body began political action as the American party. It is opposed to free-masonry as false religion and as false politics, and demands the recognition of God as the author of civil government, and the prohibition of oath-bound secret lodges as acknowledging supreme allegiance to another government than that of the United States. The vote of the party was in 1876 and 1880 included in the few thousand votes classed as "scattering." Its newspaper organ is The Christian Cynosure, published in Chicago, Ill., and its practical leader is president J. Blanchard, of Wheaton College, Illinois.

ANTI-NEBRASKA MEN

ANTI-NEBRASKA MEN (IN U. S. HISTORY), a name at first assumed by northern whigs who had broken with the southern whigs on the support of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. They drew reinforcements from democrats opposed to the extension of slavery to the territories, and thus, without any party organization, succeeded in gaining control of the house, and electing the speaker in the 34th congress, (1855-6). At the next session they had developed into the republican party.

A. J.

ANTI-RENTERS

ANTI-RENTERS, The (IN U. S. HISTORY). Large portions of Columbia, Renssalaer, Greene, Delaware, and Albany counties, in the state of New York, belonged to manors, the original grants of which were made to "patroons" by the Dutch company, and renewed by James II., the principal being Renssalaerswyck and Livingston manor. The tenants had deeds for their farms, but paid annual rental in kind, instead of a principal sum. This arrangement caused growing dissatisfaction among the tenants after 1790. When Stephen Van Renssalaer, who had allowed much of the rent to remain in arrears, died in 1839, the tenants, who longed to become real land owners, made common cause against his successor, refused to pay rent, disguised themselves as "Injuns," and began a reign of terror, which for ten years, practically suspended the operations of law and the payment of rent throughout the district. An attempt to serve process by militia aid, known as the "Helderberg war," was unsuccessful. In 1847 and 1849 the anti-renters "adopted" a part of each party state ticket, and thus showed a voting strength of about 5,000. This was not to be disregarded in a closely divided state, and in 1850 the legislature directed the attorney general to bring suit against Harmon Livingston, to try title. The suit was decided in Livingston's favor, in November, 1850, but both parties were then ready to compromise, the owners by selling the farms at fair rates, and the tenants by paying for them. Most of Renssalaerswyck was sold, and of the Livingston manor, which at one time contained 162,000 acres of choice farming land, very little now remains in the possession of the family.

—See Jay Gould's History of Delaware County N. Y., and authorities under NEW YORK; Mrs. Willard's Last Leaves of American History, 16-18;
Edition: current; Page: [102]
Jenkins' Life of Silas Wright, 179-226; Cooper's Littlepage Tales.

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

ANTI-SLAVERY.

ANTI-SLAVERY. (See ABOLITION.)

APPORTIONMENT

APPORTIONMENT. The term apportionment was applied in the federal constitution to the distribution of representatives in the lower chamber of the federal congress between the several states and to the allotment of direct taxes upon the basis of population. The rate intervals at which direct taxes have been levied by the federal government, and the recurrence in the state and federal systems of regular apportionments of representatives, have led to the general restriction of this term to the distribution of representation, and it is here used in this sense alone. State constitutions employ the word in both senses, but more frequently with reference to representation. The regular annual apportionment in many of the states, New York, Illinois, and others, of a school fund raised from the several counties by valuation and distributed by population (New York) or by population of a school age (Illinois) has continued the use of the word apportionment in fiscal allotments. The word has also a legal signification. As the division of a territory into districts is usually intimately connected with the apportionment of representation to its population, the words "districting" and "re-districting" have come to be used in American politics as nearly synonymous with apportionment.

—The principle of representation once established and its basis determined, the apportionment of representative power in arbitrary or proportional parts becomes the next problem in any government based on representative institutions. This apportionment may rest either on status, or the representation of certain estates by members qualified, not by election, but by position; on the organic divisions of the state; or on numbers, reference being had either to population or wealth. Bentham proposed an apportionment based in part on population and in part on territory, and such a principle was adopted in France in the constitution drawn by the constituent assembly in 1791. It has been secured elsewhere in practice by combining a representation based on population with one based on the integral divisions of the state. Historically the apportionment of representation has been first by status, next by the recognition, generally on an equality, of the organic or administrative divisions of the state, and lastly by number; a method of apportionment now recognized in the fundamental law of all constitutional nations except Great Britain, and at intervals recognized even there. In general where apportionment is based on status it is arbitrary; when derived from the administrative or other divisions of a state or confederacy it is equal; and, when guided by population, it is proportional. The allotment of representation among the towns of Aragon in the first recorded instance of representation assigned other than by status, in 1162, was equal, and the same rule was followed in Castile in 1169. Frederick II. In Sicily, 1232, assigned each place two representatives. When the cities appeared by deputies in the German diet, they enjoyed equal representation, and the same was true of the municipalities represented in the states general of France. A like principle was followed in the union of Utrecht in the Netherlands, as it had been in the Swiss confederation. It reappeared in the continental congress and is preserved in the United States senate. An upper chamber swayed by this principle, even where, as in Germany and the Dominion of Canada, complete equality is not given the smaller states, and a lower chamber based on population, often with certain classes excluded—as aliens in many American states, and slaves in Cuba under the Spanish constitution—is now the rule in most representative constitutions.

—In allotting representatives by population among the divisions of a state, whether a definite number of representatives or a fixed ratio is applied to the population of each division, fractions always remain. Provision is generally made for treading these fractions as full ratios if over one-half; but in the United States the tendency of apportionments during the past generation has been toward a recognition of any fraction in all cases where greater proportional equality of representation is secured by doing so. Regular intervals at which an apportionment shall be made are generally prescribed in the fundamental law and the apportionment itself is generally, but not always, performed by the legislature. In the division of representation, the entire number assigned to each subdivision may be elected as a whole. French scrutin de liste, or districts, may be laid out, as in the German empire and in most states of the union, in apportioning state representation, by the body making the original apportionment, or the work of districting may be done by a second body as congressional districts, after the apportionments of representatives by congress, are laid out by the state legislatures, and in New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Missouri state legislative districts within the counties are laid out by county authorities, independently of the legislature. Where the election of representatives is by single districts the effort is, not unfrequently, made to lay out these subdivisions so as to give the party in power a majority. This is ordinarily done by massing the voters of the opposite party in a few districts and distributing those voting with the party in power in a larger number. In American polities this is known as "gerrymandering;" having been conspicuously practiced in the act of Feb. 11, 1812, laying out Massachusetts into senate districts, passed during the temporary ascendancy of the democratic party in the legislature of that state under Gov. Elbridge Gerry. Another instance of the same practice which has given a term to polities is the sixth congressional district in Mississippi. as laid out in 1874, which, as it lies along the Mississippi river and almost the entire
Edition: current; Page: [103]
length of the state, is known as the "shoe-string" district. The districts laid out in France under the second empire by the electoral decree of 1858 furnished equally remarkable cases of "gerry-mandering."

—As the British colonies in North America, while enjoying mutual political equality, differed greatly in size and population, the problem of an equitable apportionment of representation presented itself in the earliest inter-colonial assemblies. In the confederation made by the New England colonies in 1643, known as the "united colonies of New England," each of the four colonies was equally represented in its council by two delegates, although the burdens of taxation and military service were allotted by population. At a later date, 1648, Massachusetts demanded an additional member or an equalization between the privilege of representation and the burdens of taxation. This was denied in the reorganization of the confederacy, and to its close the share of each colony in its deliberations remained equal. The first step in American history toward an apportionment of representation upon some other basis than the equal voice of each division in the nascent nation was presented in the "plan of union," submitted by Benjamin Franklin to the commissioners from seven states, who met at Albany in June, 1765. This plan proposed a "general council" with "legislative powers," apportioned every three years among the colonies by the "proportion of money arising out of each colony to the general treasury." A provisional apportionment proposed by Franklin for the first meeting of this council is the earliest aliquot division of representation among the colonies ever offered. The same problem confronted the continental congress at its first session in Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 1774, when James Duane, of New York, proposed a committee to prepare regulations "particularly on the method of voting, whether by colonies, by poll, or by interests." Patrick Henry, declaring that he sat "not as a Virginian but an American," urged a "national" system of representation based upon free citizens, excluding slaves; but the congress, as John Adams reminded it, had accurate information neither as to the wealth nor the population of the colonies, and it was at length voted "that in determining questions in this congress each colony or province shall have one vote, the congress not being possessed of or at present able to procure materials for ascertaining the importance of each colony." There was here the distinct admission, and apparently by a unanimous vote, that the colonies were entitled not to an individual but to a proportional vote; but the precedent established of necessity was accepted in practice and became the rule of procedure in the continental congress, first by consent and later by the articles of confederation Apportionment in the acts and proceedings of the congress of the revolution is uniformly applied to the assessment of pecuniary burdens and the distribution of calls for military service. Proportional representation was urged by Virginia, but steadily voted down by the smaller states. "Our great question," wrote John Adams, when a member of the committee drafting the articles of confederation in 1776, "is whether each colony shall count one, or whether each shall have a weight in proportion to its number or wealth or exports and imports or a compound ratio of all." The subject came up for discussion in the long and desultory debate to which these articles were subjected in congress through fifteen months, and Oct. 5, 1777, three plans of apportionment were proposed in succession; first, that Rhode Island, Delaware, and Georgia should have one vote and the other states one for every 50,000 white inhabitants, with a provision that the representation of the three smaller states should increase with every additional 50,000 to their inhabitants and the ratio of representation be itself changed when it threatened to make congress too numerous; second, that every state should send a delegate for every 30,000 of its inhabitants, each delegate to have one vote, and third, that representation should be "computed by numbers proportioned" to the taxes levied on the states and paid by them into the public treasury. All three propositions were voted down, Pennsylvania and Virginia standing alone in their support, and by a vote of ten colonies to one, each was given one vote and the privilege of sending not less than two nor more than seven delegates.

—Repeated review and discussion have made familiar the steps by which a compromise was reached in the convention of 1787, at Philadelphia, on the distribution and apportionment of representation; the only question which provoked the menace of withdrawal from one of the states and threatened at a later date the dissolution of the convention. As at last adopted, an equal representation was given the organic divisions of the new government in the upper chamber. In the lower, number was followed as far as the free population of the country was concerned, and status in determining the share, "other persons" should play in increasing the representation of states with a slave population. The verbiage of the clause in the federal constitution, basing representation on the total free population, "three-fifths of all other persons, and excluding Indians not taxed," first appeared as an amendment to the articles of confederation in the continental congress April 18, 1783, proposing a new basis for raising revenue. It was urged and accepted in the convention as an equitable compromise and in the constitution was accompanied by a clause which provided that the federal house of representatives should never have less than a member to each state and never have more than one to every 30,000 inhabitants in the states, computed upon the constitutional rule. The constitution contained also a provisional apportionment of representation to the states, at best little more than a guess. Mr. Gorbam, of Massachusetts, a member of the committee of five which first sketched this apportionment, informed the convention that without observing fractions, the committee
Edition: current; Page: [104]
had been guided by the "number of blacks and whites with some regard to supposed wealth," and at a later date Mr. Gerry, of the same state, told the Massachusetts convention that, in the share given Georgia, allowance was made for expected growth from pending immigration. The only grave criticism made on the provisions respecting apportionment in the federal constitution came from Virginia and Massachusetts, who urged that the ratio should not be altered till the number of representatives reached 200. A constitutional amendment to this purport was passed by the 1st congress, but it was never ratified by the states. The constitutional rule remained unchanged and governed apportionments through 70 years, a longer span than has fallen in history to any other provision controlling the distribution of representation by changes in population.

—The first of the 10 decennial apportionments, including 1880, which have come up under the federal constitution, raised, in 1792, all the questions in regard to the representation of fractions and was marked by the same struggle between the north and the south, as its successors. In this and in 4 succeeding apportionments the recognition of fractions was treated as unconstitutional. Since 1830 a contrary practice has obtained and is now firmly established. The census of 1790 placed the representative population of the country at 3,636,921. Dividing this by 30,000 as a ratio, the house (2nd congress, 1st session) apportioned 113 members on a plan favoring the southern states. The senate raised the ratio to 33,000, transferring the unrepresented fractions from the east to the south. The house refused to yield and the senate insisting upon its amendment, by the casting vote of vice-president Adams, the bill lapsed, and the house passed another, with the same apportionment, but providing for a new census in 1795, to be followed by another apportionment. The senate struck out this provision, added 7 members for each large fraction, which in Delaware was 29,000, and sent the bill back to the house. There, after a hot debate, in which both sections predicted a dissolution of the union if an apportionment favoring it was not adopted, the bill passed 31 to 29; the Delaware member, the only representative from the south voting for it. A week later the bill encountered the first veto message in the history of the government. Hamilton and Knox, the two northern members of the cabinet, advised its signature; Jefferson and Randolph, the two southern members, its veto. President Washington, with some misgiving, lest he should seem to "be taking sides with a southern party;" sent to congress a brief veto, in which, without accepting or rejecting the principle first advanced by James Madison, that the representation of fractions was unconstitutional, he based his objections upon the fact that the apportionment was on a different ratio in different states and in some fell below 30,000, the constitutional limit. The first was the inevitable result of representing fractions at all; the second of assigning members to fractions after taking the smallest ratio known to the constitution. Congress yielded, and in the house 34 to 30, in the senate by a heavy majority, passed a bill placing the ratio at 33,000, and apportioning 105 members among the states, without regard to fractions. The real principle underlying this and succeeding struggles, was whether in an apportionment the nation should be considered as a whole or be dealt with by states.

—Following the same ratio and the same principle as in the 1st apportionment, congress, in January, 1802, (6th congress, 2nd sess.) distributed 141 members among 15 states. Senator White, of Dalaware, endeavored in the senate, to secure an additional member for an unrepresented fraction of 28,811 in his state, but his proposition was voted down, 10 to 15 as unconstitutional.

—Two unsuccessful attempts were made before the census of 1810, to determine the apportionment in advance, by adopting a ratio before the results of the census were known; but the house (11th congress, 2nd and 3rd sess.) laid on the table bills proposing 40,000 and 45,000 as the ratios. After the census was published, the house, (12th cong., 1st sess.), 102 to 18, placed the ratio at 37,000, distributing 180 members. The senate, on motion of senator Bayard, 22 to 12, reduced the ratio to 35,000, giving Delaware a member, with 181 as a total, and the house, 72 to 62, agreed.

—For the first time since the 1st apportionment, an effort was made, after the census of 1820, (17th cong., 1st sess.), to abandon an equal ratio for all the states and adopt a number which should make the average to each member within each state equal. Under the vehement opposition of Mr. John Randolph, this was voted down, 43 to 125, and, 100 to 58, the house passed the apportionment bill, as reported by its committee, with a ratio of 40,000 and a house of 212 members. The senate, 25 to 21, accepted this, but added an amendment providing that the apportionment could be changed in the case of Alabama, when its census was completed, and, while denounced as unconstitutional in the house, for prolonging the apportionment, it passed 98 to 47.

—Mr. James K. Polk, in 1832 reported to the house (20th cong., 1st sess.) an apportionment bill based on the 5th census, in which the ratio was 48,000, and the membership of the house 240, a ratio favorable to Tennessee and highly unfavorable to New England. The house after prolonged debate, in which several other ratios were adopted, at last, 119 to 75, reduced the ratio to 47,300, which cut down the apparent size of the fractions without changing the distribution of members, and sent the bill to the senate. There it was attacked by Mr. Webster, in an elaborate report, urging the representation of fractions over one-half; the representation of fractions less than a moiety being pronounced unconstitutional. This amendment was once lost, 23 to 24, but its principle was at length adopted, 23 to 20, the whigs generally voting with Mr. Webster. The house, 134 to 57, refused to agree, and the senate yielded.
Edition: current; Page: [105]
Mr. Polk presented the democratic view in a report in which he declared that the states "must be regarded as separate, distinct communities or masses of population and not as parts of the consolidated population of the union, melted down into one mass or community;" a doctrine now abandoned in federal apportionments.

—Debate chiefly centered, in the apportionment on the census of 1840, (27th cong., 2d sess.), on a provision requiring the states to elect by districts, moved by Mr. William Halstead, of New Jersey. Supported by the whigs and opposed by the democrats, this was passed, 101 to 99, in the house, and 29 to 19 in the senate. This measure was principally intended to divide the delegations from New York and Pennsylvania, then elected on a general ticket. It was opposed as unconstitutional, because it directed the state legislatures to lay out districts, and deprived any citizen from voting for the entire congressional representation of his state. In the struggle over this provision, fractional representation was adopted with little debate. The house, 125 to 75, placed the ratio at 50,179 and the members at 217. The senate, 28 to 18, added 6 members for fractions over one half, and the house, after once refusing, yielded to this, 111 to 102.

—The census of 1850 was preceded by a measure determining the method and principle of the apportionment based upon it. To the bill providing for taking the census, sections were added, on motion of Mr. S. F. Vinton, of Ohio, (31st cong., 1st sess.) placing the number of the house at 200, and requiring the secretary of the interior, as a ministerial act, to divide the representative population of the entire country by 200, and the population of each state by the quotient thus obtained as a ratio; assigning to each state representatives for each full ratio its population contained, and 1 for each fraction till the entire number, 200, was exhausted. The principle of these sections, since known as the "Vinton bill," has guided all subsequent apportionments. The house, 93 to 78, increased the number of members to 233, and the senate supported this, 27 to 17. An apportionment was made pursuant to this measure by the secretary of the interior, (32nd cong., 1st sess., ex. doc. 129). and subsequently altered under a supplementary act, (approved July 30, 1852), giving California an additional member.

—In apportioning representatives after the census of 1860, congress followed the principle of Vinton's bill, but abandoned its method. The house, 86 to 7, passed without debate, (37th cong., 1st sess.), a bill which, taking 233 as the basis for apportioning 233 members on Vinton's plan, then added 6 more members to represent large fractions in Vermont, Rhode Island, Ohio, Kentucky and Iowa. In the senate, Mr. Collamer, going a step farther in the support of fractional representation than had been proposed at any previous apportionment, urged that the average of population to each member should be kept equal by giving the small states an overplus. The senate, still basing its ratios on 233 members, added 8 for fractions in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont and Rhode Island, making 241. Supplementary legislation gave California an additional member and permitted Illinois to elect a member at large.

—Before the census of 1870, the 8th, had been taken, these amendments had altered the constitutional rule of apportionment. The 13th amendment left no "other persons" for the three-fifths rule to operate upon, and the 15th amendment, by imposing manhood suffrage upon the states, accomplished the purpose intended by the 2nd section of the 14th amendment. Drawn as a compromise, after the failure of a proposed amendment directly expressing its purpose, the 14th amendment, in its 2nd section, imposed a new rule of apportionment by requiring the population of each state, as a basis of representation, to be diminished in the proportion between the whole number of its male citizens, 21 years of age and upward, and those whose right to vote at any state or federal election the state denied or in "any way abridged," except for crime or a share in the rebellion. This amendment was intended solely to discourage exclusions from suffrage or account of race; but senator Sumner objected to the explicit assertion of this purpose, and proposed language so broad as to include, in its literal meaning, all the abridgments of the grant of suffrage to adult citizens, based on residence, illiteracy, idiocy, insanity, non-payment of a poll-tax, or a property qualification. This interpretation was never suggested in the debates upon the amendment. It had its first recognition in two bills for taking the 9th census, drawn by Mr. James A. Garfield, and passed by the house, (41st cong., 2nd sess), but lost in the senate. In the absence of legislation the secretary of the interior added to the schedules of the 9th census, inquiries in regard to the abridgment of suffrage to citizens; but the data obtained deserved, as Mr. Francis A. Walker, superintendent of the census said, "little credit." No provision for obtaining this information was embodied in the law for taking the 10th census, and two precedents now exist for disregarding this inquiry in census legislation. When an apportionment based on the 9th census was reached in the house (42nd cong., 2nd sess.) Mr. Garfield and Mr. S. S. Cox insisted that the meagre returns reported by the secretary of the interior should be employed, such as they were. Mr. James Maynard and Mr. M. C. Kerr united in advancing the interpretation that the 14th amendment regarded only abridgments of the suffrage based "on race, color, nationality, or any other quality which inheres in the person and constitutes part of the individuality of the voter," and the house, 77 to 70, supported this commentary. In the debate in the house (46th cong., 3d sess.) on the apportionment after the 10th census, substantially the same view was adopted, Mr. Cox urging that the rule in the 14th amendment could not be practically applied. This may now be considered as the accepted doctrine, and
Edition: current; Page: [106]
future apportionments will probably rest upon number alone.

—Prior to the census of 1870 the house, (41st cong., 2nd sess.), passed, 86 to 84, a bill drawn after Vinton's measure and placing the apportionment of 275 members in the hands of the secretary of the interior. The senate, 30 to 21, increased this number to 300, and the bill was lost in the house, 96 to 94. Two years later, the house, (42nd cong., 2nd sess.), adopted, 93 to 89, a law, apportioning 283 members upon a new plan. Four of the states, Delaware, Nebraska, Nevada and Oregon, had a population less than the ratio obtained by dividing the entire population of the United States by 283. Assigning these states 4 members, their population was subtracted and the remainder of the population divided by 279 for a new ratio; upon which the remaining apportionment was made, 17 members being assigned for fractions. The senate accepted this bill; but at a later date a supplementary bill passed both chambers adding a member each to New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, Louisiana and Florida, 9 in all, making the total 292. Upon its face a supplement to the other bill, this was in fact, as an accompanying report explains, to be taken with that as a new apportionment with 131,425 as a ratio, obtained by dividing the population by 290; 2 more members being given for large fractions in Florida and New Hampshire.

—After the census of 1880, the house, (46th cong., 3rd sess.), 136 to 123, passed a bill apportioning 319 members, on Vinton's plan, but the measure was lost in the senate.

—All the states of the American Union, except Delaware, provide in their constitutions for a periodical apportionment of representation, and a re-distribution of the members in one or both branches of the legislature has been made with some regularity during the last half-century in all the other states except Connecticut. This allotment of representation is usually guided exclusively by numbers in apportioning the lower branch and by population controlled by county or town lines in the upper, so that the former generally reflects changes in population more closely than the latter. The chief exception to this rule is in Vermont where representation in the lower branch has, since 1793,14 been equally distributed among the towns while the members of the senate, since 1836, have been divided among the counties by population.

—The duty of apportionment is committed to the legislative authority of the state; except in Ohio, where the governor, auditor and secretary of state or any two of them have allotted representation in both branches under the constitution of 1851; in Maryland, where the governor performs the same duty by the constitution of 1867; while in Missouri, 1867, the governor, secretary of state and attorney general are empowered to lay out senate districts if the lower chamber, at its final session after any enumeration, fails to pass a bill re-districting the senate. In Massachusetts, under amendments adopted in 1836 and in 1840, the apportionment of the state was placed in the hands of the governor and council, until 1857, when it was restored to the legislature. In Illinois, by the constitution of 1870, the first apportionment under minority, representation was committed to the governor and secretary of state. Both Massachusetts, 1780, and New Hampshire, in 1784, in their early constitutions left the apportionment of representatives in a measure to the people of each town by selecting a small number of ratable polls as the ratio and permitting each town to send 1 for such ratio; the large towns, as Boston, rarely sending all the members to which they were entitled to the general court. This right, the judge of the state held (Mass. Elec. Cases, 120,) was enjoyed by the town in its corporate capacity and could not be interfered with by the legislature—The following table gives the ratio and the number of representatives at each apportionment:

Edition: current; Page: [107]

The basis of apportionment, where dependent on the civil divisions of the state, is, in New England, the town; in the middle, western and southern states the county; in Louisiana the parish; in South Carolina, until 1868, election districts: while in New York until 1821, in Virginia, from 1850 to 1864, the state was divided into 4 districts, made up of counties, within which senators were apportioned. In Virginia 8 such districts were provided at the same time for the lower branch. Ohio, 1831, has 33 fixed senate districts within whose limits senators are apportioned, districts being united from time to time when they fall below the ratio obtained by dividing the state population by 35. Under an opinion given by attorney general Nash, in 1881, districts so united can not be separated in a subsequent apportionment until the population of each equals the state ratio for senator. Another unit in apportionment was recognized in Maryland by the division of the state, adopted in 1776 abolished in 1836, into an "eastern" and "western" shore in alloting the senate. Massachusetts was also divided up to 1831 into senate districts, made "permanent" in 1840, among which senators were apportioned. These various divisions of a state to which representation is assigned or within which it is divided must be distinguished from the ordinary district whose erection is a customary incident of apportionment where the number of representatives is greater or less than the number of counties or towns. Apportionments within the states, based upon number, rest either upon the entire population, (Alabama, 1867; Connecticut, 1828; Illinois, 1870; Louisiana, 1852, 1879; Massachusetts, 1840; Minnesota, 1857; Missouri, 1875; Nebraska, 1867; Nevada, 1864; New Hampshire, 1877, New Jersey, 1844; Ohio, 1851; Pennsylvania, 1873; Rhode Island, 1842; South Carolina, 1868; Texas, 1836, 1876; Vermont, 1836; West Virginia, 1872; Wisconsin, 1848; all the western states mentioned excluding Indians not taxed), upon the total population less aliens, (Maine, 1820; Maryland, 1867), upon the total population, less aliens and Indians not taxed. (New York, 1821; North Carolina, 1868), upon the total population less aliens ineligible to naturalization, Chinese, (California, 1879) or upon voters (Arkansas, 1874; Florida, 1868; Georgia, 1877; Indiana, 1831; Kentucky, 1850; Mississippi, 1868; Tennessee, 1834). In three states, the old limitation to a white population still remains (Iowa, 1857; Michig, 1850; Oregon, 1857), but in none of these would the recognition of a colored population affect an apportionment. In Michigan, "civilized persons of Indian descent" are included in the representative population and tax paying Indians were by the New York legislature in the last, 1879, apportionment of the state. The constitutions of Colorado, 1876, Kansas, 1859, and of Virginia, 1870, omit to designate specifically the basis of apportionment, which is presumably the entire population. In nearly all the states, limitations upon the application of the rule of numbers exist with reference to one chamber or the other; usually by requiring county lines to be observed. In New Hampshire, the upper chamber is still apportioned by direct taxation. An apportionment of this character existed till 1821 in New York, 1836 in Massachusetts, 1868 in South Carolina and from 1835 to 1868 in North Carolina. In all these states, except South Carolina, this allotment was applied to the upper branch; there one-half the lower branch was apportioned by taxation and one-half by population under a provision adopted in 1808 and continuing till 1868. Georgia and Pennsylvania both had apportionments based on freeholders in their first constitutions and ratable tax-payers were the basis for apportioning the lower branch in New Hampshire till 1877 and in Massachusetts till 1840. Before the civil war, Georgia, 1798; Maryland, 1851; North Carolina, 1835; Virginia, 1850, adopted the "federal" rule of population and in all the other slave states, the free white population was the only basis employed as to population. A like limitation occurs in most of the early constitutions in the states formed out of the northwest territory.

—The decennial census taken under the federal constitution has led all the states except Kentucky, which still retains an octennial period, to adopt an apportionment once in 10 years, even where, as in New York and Massachusetts, the state apportionment takes place after an intercalary state census. In 10 states (California, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon and Wisconsin) provision is made for a new distribution of representation after every state as well as after every federal census, giving an apportionment every five years. Apportionments every 4 years, (Arkansas, 1836; Iowa, 1846; Louisiana, 1812; Kentucky, 1792; Missouri, 1820; Ohio, 1802,) every 6 years, (Alabama, 1819: Indiana, 1851,) every 7 years, (Georgia, 1798; New York, 1777; Pennsylvania, 1776, 1840; Tennessee, 1796; Vermont, 1786), and every 8 years, (Kentucky, 1850; Texas, 1845) have been required by different constitutions; but of these only Kentucky survives. It is an open question in state, as in federal, constitutional practice whether the requirement of a recurrent apportionment is mandatory or directory, whether it can be discharged only by the legislature sitting next after the enumeration or by any other, and whether once accomplished, it can be revised by a succeeding legislature. The constitution of Louisiana, adopted in 1868, prohibited the legislature from passing any act at the first session after a census before a reapportionment bill had become a law, but this restriction was dropped in the constitution of 1875. The constitutions of 6 states (Arkansas, 1874; Alabama, 1867; Connecticut, 1828; Nebraska, 1875; New York, 1846; New Jersey, 1844), require an apportionment once made to remain unchanged till the next census, and the constitutions of all the other states enjoin an apportionment "immediately" or at the "first session
Edition: current; Page: [108]
after" an enumeration. Mandatory language is generally used in these injunctions, but the practice of state legislatures has repeatedly construed it as directory. The constitution of Connecticut, 1828, requires a decennial apportionment of the senate, but after making an apportionment on the census of 1830 none was made till 1880 by the legislature. In New York State after the census of 1855 an apportionment was not made till 1857, and after the census of 1875 till 1879, and there have been other cases of delay. The attorney general of New York state held in an opinion (58 N. Y. A. Gen. Decisions 21) that no apportionment could be made except by the legislature meeting immediately after the enumeration, and while the law does not seem settled (19 N. Y. 41; 20 N. Y. 447, 19 Barber 81) the later decisions favor the view that an apportionment can be made only after an enumeration (3 Keyes 111). This is the accepted doctrine in Maine (Opinions of Justices, 33: 587, and 18:458), but an exception is made if the apportionment "appear to have been unconstitutional." In Massachusetts the decennial distribution is held to be "fixed and unalterable" (6 Cushing 575; 2 Gray 84), as it in is Ohio (1 Ohio, 437). In the state last named frequent changes in apportionments had been, as the court was moved to say, a "most humiliating experience." A like practice, more or less frequent, has established in most states the precedent that an apportionment can be made by any legislature and in some cases, when an apportionment has already been made, (Indiana state apportionment 1880, Ohio 1878 and 1880, in re-districting congressional districts, and Louisiana 1879), a second and third distribution of representation has been made by successive legislatures.

—In apportioning representation, the state authority discharging this duty is generally limited in three particulars, in the number of members to be distributed, in their distribution among the civil divisions of the state and in the representation to be given to fractions. But three state constitutions (Alabama, 1819; Georgia, 1789; North Carolina, 1776) have left the legislature complete discretion in determining its numbers at an apportionment. The usual practice has been to specify a major and minor number within which the legislature is required to act. This is now the case in all the states except 14 (Delaware, 1776; California, 1870; Colorado, 1876; Georgia, 1868; Illinois, 1870; Iowa, 1857; Massachusetts, 1837; Nebraska, 1867; New York, 1846; North Carolina, 1868; Ohio, 1851; South Carolina, 1868; Vermont, 1836 and West Virginia, 1877). In several of the earlier constitutions, instead of specifying the limits by the number of senators and representatives, a ratio is named by the constitution to be used in apportionment. This is still the case in Florida, where 1,000 registered voters is the ratio in the lower branch, in Minnesota, 2,000 population for representatives and 5,000 for senators, in New Hampshire, 1,200 population for the house, in Rhode Island 1,530, and a like practice has been followed in other states; 7,000 and 3,000, 12,000 and 4,000 being the ratios for senator and representative in 1836 and 1841 respectively in Illinois. In distributing representation the county is usually assured as the unit, the town as well as the county being used in New England. In nearly all the states which have been admitted into the Union since its organization and in several of the original states, the legislature is at liberty to group counties whose population falls below the representative ratio; but in 7 states (Florida, 1868; Georgia, 1868; Kansas, 1859; Louisiana, 1879; Michigan, 1850; New Jersey, 1844; New York, 1846), each county, and in Rhode Island, 1842, each town is guaranteed 1 member of the lower branch, and in Connecticut, 1828, each county is secured 2 senators and in New Jersey 1. Provisions prohibiting the legislature from dividing counties in laying out districts for the upper chamber and requiring such districts to be of contiguous territory, exist in many constitutions, but the inconvenience of a contrary practice has led it to be abandoned, even when no restriction exists. In Maine, the judges have held (Opinions of Justices, 18: 458) that a small county can be attached to a portion of a large county, where the latter is divided into more than one district. In New York state such an apportionment has been proposed, but never practiced. It has been held in the same state that after districts have been laid out new counties could be erected a part in each, leaving the right of suffrage unchanged (19 Barber 81); but this is doubtful and has been denied in an opinion by attorney general Talcott (Assembly Journal, 1822, p. 78), a view which is sustained in 20 N. Y., 447. A limitation upon the number of members which can be assigned any one county exists in the constitutions of most of the states having a large city, designed to prevent the concentration of too large a representation at a single point. A provision of this character was strongly urged by Chancellor Kent in the New York constitutional convention in 1821, but was voted down. Pennsylvania, in the year 1873, Rhode Island, in 1842, South Carolina, in 1868, Maine, 1820, and Florida, in 1868, have such limitations in regard to one chamber or the other, and down to a recent date they existed in Louisiana. In Maryland, 1851, Missouri, 1873, and New Hampshire, 1877, the same result is reached by largely increasing the ratio of representation when a number of members are apportioned to one county. It is the uniform practice in all the states to recognize the representation of fractions whether a constitutional provision is made for this or not. In Tennessee a county losing by unrepresented fractions in apportioning one branch, is to have special representation in apportioning the other; in Kentucky allowance is to be made for such loss in successive apportionments; in Texas fractions can be united by giving two counties having fractions equal to a ratio an additional member, but in general the legislature is left to its own discretion. In Massachusetts,
Edition: current; Page: [109]
under the amendments adopted in 1836 and 1840, fractions were given a proportional representation during a part of each decennial period, a plan followed in the Ohio constitution of 1851. Each fraction left in apportioning senators and representatives among districts and counties is multiplied by five, and if the product equals a full ratio, the district receives an additional member for the fifth of the five terms into which each ten year period is divided, if the product equals two ratios for the fourth and fifth terms, and so on. These additional members are known in Ohio politics as "floaters."

—The initial apportionment of representation prior to the existence of a written constitution in the original states was in general made by the revolutionary committee in organizing a new government after the disappearance of the colonial administration. In the admitted states and the organization of territories, an apportionment is usually provided in the enabling act. In distributing representation in the various conventions and state "congresses" called in 1775-6-7-8, an equal allotment among the recognized divisions of each colony was the rule, as it had been in the colonial legislatures. In New Hampshire, a census was taken in 1775, the earliest on record with this end in view, for the purpose of "apportioning fairly" the delegates to a convention which met Dec. 21, 1775. An unequal distribution of representation was made in South Carolina in calling a congress in 1776; but it does not appear to have been guided by population. In Pennsylvania each county and Philadelphia were given 8 members in the convention of 1776. Equal county representation was followed in New Jersey and Delaware. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina adopted the apportionment already existing. The first step toward an apportionment based on number was not taken in Rhode Island till the irregular call issued by a committee appointed by the "friends of the suffrage" convention, July 20, 1841, which assigned each town a delegate to every 1,000 inhabitants, and 3 to each ward in Providence. Vermont, on organizing a central government in 1777, gave each town an equal voice. The first apportionment in Kentucky, to the convention meeting at Danville, was on the basis of a delegate to every company of militia in the Kentucky district, a unique instance in American history of representation resting on the old Teutonic foundation, an arms-bearing people. The ordinance of 1787, in providing for the government of the territory northwest of the Ohio, apportioned the membership of the lower branch of the territorial legislature by allowing, "for every 500 free male inhabitants, 1 representative, and so on progressively," until the number of representatives amounted to 25, when further apportionment was left to the legislature of the territory. In succeeding enabling acts constituting territories, the first apportionment and districting is vested in the governor and succeeding allotments committed to the legislature. Where, as in Alabama, 1817, a territory is erected from counties already part of another, the existing apportionment is accepted. Usually, in providing for a convention to draft a state constitution, the distribution of representatives is left to the territorial legislature, sometimes with a limit on the number of the convention, (Louisiana, 1811) and in other instances the enabling act makes the apportionment, (Missouri, 1820); a circumstance probably due to the fact that the proposed state was smaller in area than the existing territory. In the last three states admitted, Nevada, Nebraska, and Colorado, the act providing for a state convention authorizes the governor of the territory to lay out districts, and constitutes the governor, the federal district attorney, and the chief justice a board of apportionment to distribute the members, whose number is usually fixed by the governor, among these districts. Where the first step toward a convention is taken by the people an existing apportionment has been adopted, in West Virginia, 1861, the old representative districts of the last Virginia apportionment, in Kansas, 1857-9, and in Michigan, 1834, the lower branch of the territorial legislature, but in Tennessee, 1796, the first call was for 5 from each county. In California the constitutional convention of 1849 revised its own apportionment; an act without precedent. The convention met pursuant to a call issued by brigadier general Riley, U. S. A.,—in his capacity as civil governor of the conquered territory—dividing the state into 10 districts and apportioning delegates among them with general reference to the last Mexican apportionment, with a proviso that any district could elect more members whose admission would be decided by the convention. After three days' debate, the convention, guided principally by the votes cast, increased its number from 37 to 73.

—In the period succeeding the civil war, an apportionment of representation in state party conventions based on the votes cast at a recent election for the candidates of the party has come into use. It obtains in both parties in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Ohio, in the republican party in New York, in city conventions in Cincinnati and Chicago, and elsewhere. Where such a division is not employed, representation in a party convention is generally based on some legislative apportionment.

—The methodical distribution of representation upon an accepted basis is recent in all European governments. No principle was followed in allotting representation in the ancient German diet. The constitutions of 1815, which organized the federal diet of the German empire, divided representation with general reference to population in the plenum or general assembly, but contained no provision for an apportionment. The short-lived Frankfort assembly of 1848 was based on a representative ratio of 50,000 inhabitants. An apportionment according to population was a prominent feature of the Prussian plan for reorganizing Germany in 1866. The projects proposed by Austria at Frankfort, Sept. 1, 1863,
Edition: current; Page: [110]
and by Saxony, Oct. 15, 1861, both divided representation more closely in accordance with population than in the federal diet, but they adopted no uniform rule of distribution. This was provided during the organization of the North German confederation in 1866 through the adoption in September by the Prussian legislature of a law for the election of the first German parliament, under which a deputy was to be apportioned to the states in the constituent diet of the new confederacy for every 100,000 inhabitants, a surplus of 50,000 to be treated as a whole number; elective departments and districts to be settled by the government. This apportionment was extended without changing its character when the new German empire was organized in 1871, and adopted for the reichstag in article 20 of the constitution. The limits placed upon future apportionments are the stipulations that each state shall have at least one representative and the guarantee of 48 members to Bavaria, 17 to Nuremberg, 14 to Baden, and 6 to Hesse. The apportionment of representation to the states in the bundesrath, or federal council, as fixed by article 6, is not subject to revision, but gives each of the larger states a representation approximately proportioned to population, and the smaller states 1 vote each. In the Prussian kingdom an apportionment based on population was first provided by the electoral law passed by the united diet in 1848, which took the census of 1846 as a basis in distributing representation in the lower chamber, assigning 1 member to each civil division, 2 to those having 60,000 inhabitants, and for every 40,000 more inhabitants an additional member. The Prussian constitution of 1850 altered this apportionment by distributing the election of 350 members among administrative "circles" of 10,000 inhabitants each. The present Prussian lower chamber is apportioned upon much the same principle. Representation in the provincial diets of Austria is not subject to any systematic apportionment, and while the membership in the Austrian reichsrath and the Hungarian house of representatives follows the population of the crown lands represented approximately in each case, the average ratio of representation (1 to 34,000 in Hungary and 1 to 97,000 in Austria in 1869) is extremely unlike in the two bodies. The imperial patent of Feb. 26, 1861, under which the first Austrian parliament was summoned, apportioned 343 deputies among the crown lands with a general adherence to population in the share given each. The earlier Austrian constitution of 1849 provided no apportionment whatever.

—The states general of the old French monarchy was a body in which the distribution of representation in the two upper branches rested on status and in the third on the ancient divisions and municipalities of the kingdom. The national assembly organized under the constitution of the year III, 1791, consisted of 745 members; 247 apportioned on the basis of territory, each department having 3 members and Paris 1, 249 on population and 249 on the direct contributions of each department to the government. Under the directory, the first empire, the restoration and the monarchy of July mediate elections by groups of taxables organized upon various systems took the place of any systematic apportionment. In 1848 the provisional government, in its decree of March 5, announced population as the basis of representation and, selecting 40,000 as the ratio, apportioned 900 members among the departments in France and the colonies abroad; a principle followed by the constitution of 1848 in the apportionment it provided, carried into effect by the electoral law of 1849. The constitution proclaimed under the second empire, Jan. 14, 1852, adopted 35,000 as a representative ratio (article 34) and empowered the executive to divide the departments into districts (circonscriptions) on this basis, allowing an extra member for fractions over 25,000. These districts were not required to be of contiguous territory, often were not, and were revised under the constitution every five years. Under the republic, the constituent electoral law of Feb. 25, 1875, regulates the apportionment of members to the lower branch of the national assembly. It provides that each administrative arrondissement shall name 1 deputy, (scrutiny d'arrondissement), and those with a population over 100,000, 1 for every fraction of this number. As the French arrondissements are of nearly equal size and intended to contain about 100,000 inhabitants, this is practically a general apportionment upon a ratio of 100,000, and a representation is also given the colonies. The districts electing members, it is provided by the same enactment, must be defined by law, and can be changed only by law. At the passage of the electoral law defining the apportionment of the chamber of deputies, the national assembly also distributed among the departments in nearly equal shares, not dependent on population, the senators to be chosen by each.

—An equal division of representation continued to be the rule in the allotment of representation among the Spanish municipalities summoned to send members to the cores down to the final suppression of their legislative powers in the 16th century; although during the 14th century the larger cities obtained a greater proportional representation. In 1808 the central junta, in providing for the re-assembling of the cortes, assigned an equal representation to those cities last represented and to the provincial juntas, and 1 deputy besides to every 50,000 souls in the kingdom; the Spanish American colonies, most of which were then in insurrection, being included in the apportionment. The constitution of Cadiz, adopted four years later, abolished by the decree of May 4, 1814, but subsequently revived at frequent intervals by the "constitutionalists," provided an apportionment based on population, taking 70,000 as a representative ratio. The census of 1797 was assumed as a basis of the apportionment made by the constitution, but it is difficult to reconcile its allotment of representation with the
Edition: current; Page: [111]
returns of population; Valencia and Granada, with a nearly equal population, having respectively 19 and 2 deputies. An apportionment based on representation was demanded at every rising for the next half century by Spanish liberals, and in 1868 the electoral law, promulgated by the provisional government, declared an apportionment by provinces for every 45,000 inhabitants, a fraction over 22,500 to count as a full ratio; 350 deputies being distributed on this basis. The constitution of June 6, 1869, changed this ratio to 40,000, and that of June 30, 1876, to 50,000—in Cuba, 40,000 free persons. Representation in the present Spanish upper chamber, 1881, is distributed partly by status and in part to state corporations.

—In Switzerland, an equal representation of the cantons was the rule till 1848. This was embraced in the act of mediation, 1803, and in the constitution imposed by the allied powers in 1815. In 1848 the method since enacted in the constitution of 1864 was adopted. In the state council, each canton has 1 vote, in the national council, a delegate is assigned to every 20,000 inhabitants, fractions over 10,000 to count for 1. Each canton and each half of a divided canton is guaranteed 1 vote. The election is by districts. The Danish great charter, drawn in 1848, and revised in 1866, gives a member in the lower branch, landsthing, for every 16,000 inhabitants. In Belgium the chamber of representatives is based upon a ratio of 1 to 40,000, and the provincial councils are also apportioned by population, varying from 1 to 11,500 in Brabant and Hainault to 1 to 5,000 in Limbourg and Luxembourg. The members of the lower chamber in Holland, by the constitution of 1815, revised in 1848, are apportioned 1 to 45,000 of population among the provincial states. The first Mexican constitution, 1824, apportioned the house of representatives on the ratio of 1 member to every 40,000 inhabitants.

—As the English house of commons is, in its origin, a body made up of the consolidated representation of the shires and boroughs into which the kingdom was divided for local administration and the collection of taxes, the only apportionment known in English constitutional practice is based on the organic divisions of the state; a fact mirrored in the nearly equal representation awarded to the counties and boroughs returning members to parliament before the reform bill of 1832. The changes in representation made by this and succeeding measures have been simply a redistribution of the right of returning members of parliament among civil corporations in the United Kingdom; often with a general reference to population, but with no apportionment based upon it. Sir Thomas E. May states that "the principle of population, although rudely carried into effect, formed the basis of representation in early times," but it is difficult to reconcile this statement with the actual distribution of members. The representation given Scotland by the act of union, 1707, was intended to represent the relative importance of the two kingdoms in wealth and population; but the allotment was only approximate. Even this was not attempted at the union with Ireland in 1801. In organizing representative government in the colonies, parliament has uniformly recognized population as a basis for the apportionment of representation. Pitt's constitutional act of 1791 for the government of Canada empowered the governor of the colony to decide the number of members to be returned to the lower chamber in the colonial legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada, and to lay out districts containing an equal male population for the election of these members. Future apportionments were committed to the local authorities. The same general plan was followed in the act of Aug. 5, 1850, or-ganizing the Australian colonies, an initial apportionment by the governor and future distribution by the colonial legislatures. The act of 1841, uniting the two Canadas, accepted the old districts and made a new apportionment in the bill. By the act of union in 1866, organizing the dominion of Canada, no apportionment is provided for the senate, a fixed number being assigned each province. For the house of commons, the legislature is authorized to make a decennial apportionment of 181 members among the different provinces; dividing the population of Quebec by 65 to obtain a representative ratio, in accordance with which members are to be distributed; fractions over one-half to be reckoned as whole numbers and those less than a moiety to be omitted. At any assignment, no province is to lose in representation unless its decrease of population is over one-twentieth.

TALCOTT WILLIAMS.

APPROPRIATION.

APPROPRIATION. Appropriation is the reduction to private property of an object which belonged or might belong to all. Thus, arable land which, as we may suppose, was primarily the property of the whole human race, was appropriated when it was first divided into parts, each one of which had its distinct owner.—the word appropriation can hardly be applied to things other than those given by nature; for, as to those which are the fruit of the labor of man, they so naturally and necessarily belong to him who has produced them that they are, so to speak, incorporated in him, until he disposes of them by exchange, or voluntarily destroys them. But the word appropriation does not apply equally to all natural objects. It can hardly be properly applied to the simple consumable products which the earth or the sea may furnish man with. It is rather applied to productive original stock, that is, to the natural instruments of production, such as arable land, mines, water-courses, etc., in a word to all the natural elements which constantly assist us in our labors.

—Among the natural instruments of production, some are susceptible of appropriation, others are not. For instance, arable land and mines have been almost entirely converted into private property in all civilized countries; but the sea which, like the earth, is
Edition: current; Page: [112]
productive, since it produces fish, mollusks, coral, pearls, salt, etc., has not been appropriated and scarcely can be, except some very limited portion of it near the shore.

—All economists admit that the appropriation of arable land has singularly increased its fecundity, and made it truly a benefit not only to the actual possessors of the soil, but also to those who believe they have been unjustly deprived of it. "We have examples," says J. B. Say, "of what happens where there are no landed proprietors. Where there are no such proprietors, people are in the condition of the Hurons and Iroquois. Among them the soil belongs to nobody; and the only product that their agricultural industry, which is the chase, procures from this soil, consists of the furs which they sometimes secure at the cost of untold fatigue, though at times their labor goes unrewarded. The produce of the chase does not always crown their efforts, and they and their families are exposed to most frightful privations."

—In countries where the land does not belong to anybody, nobody cultivates it, and men obtain from it only the meagre fruits which it produces spontaneously.

—In all countries, even the most civilized, there still are lands which are not absolutely appropriated, in the sense that the state or communes have reserved their possession to themselves. This is always a beginning of appropriation, and it can not be said in this case that nobody is interested in improving the natural resources of such land; but as the proprietor is a collective person, his interest is not sufficiently direct and urgent to induce him to endeavor to draw from the land all that it can be made to yield. Hence it is that in all the countries of the world, the lands belonging to the state and municipalities are by far the worst managed and least productive.

—Mines and quarries may be appropriated just as arable land may be, and, it is evident, may gain fully as much by it. Their appropriation is, however, rarely as complete and absolute as that of land. In many countries, the state makes certain reservations in this respect. In some of them the government retains the mines in its own possession, and works them itself. This is the case in Germany for instance, with the iron and salt mines, and in some other parts of Europe and America, with gold and silver mines. In France, the government while granting to private individuals the right to work mines, reserves to itself the ownership of them in principle; so that, leaving out the consideration, the labor, the expenses, and the losses to which it subjects its grantees, it constantly holds over them the threat of a withdrawal of their grant. Theirs is a sort of conditional and precarious appropriation, which does not offer the advantages of an absolute and irrevocable appropriation. (See AGENTS, NATURAL; LAND, MINES, OCCUPATION, PROPERTY.)

CHARLES COQUELIN.

APPROPRIATIONS

APPROPRIATIONS (See PARLIAMENTARY LAW.)

ARBITRAGE

ARBITRAGE. In banking and commercial matters, arbitrage or arbitration of exchange is resorted to in order to discover, by comparison and calculation the profit which may result from the negotiation of bills of exchange on different places—This process is either simple or complex. The simple process is of more general application, because there is little speculation in money changes which extend to more than three places.

—Simple arbitrage is a comparison of the course of exchange between two places, relatively to the course established between these two places and a third; that is to say, the rate of exchange between two places being known, arbitrage consists in comparing this rate with that prevailing at the third place, in order to ascertain to which of the three it is most advantageous to make the remittances to be made.

—A complex arbitrage consists in comparing the course of exchange of more than three places, with a view to ascertain what a remittance shall cost in the last which has passed through all the others. In fact, a complex arbitrage is the repetition of several simple arbitrages, and can be solved only through a series of operations in the rule of three.

—Arbitrage in the case of goods takes place especially when the price of a certain commodity at a certain place being known, it is sought to ascertain what price the commodity will bring in another market; and consequently what price should be asked for it there, so as to realize a profit. In this case, there are charges made for handling and transferring the goods to be taken into account. The merchant who is not in a position himself to reckon these expenses, particularly when his business relations extend to markets far distant from his place of residence, usually has these expenses estimated by his correspondents.

—Arbitrages are very useful, as they tend more and more to keep in balance the rate of values between different countries.

CHARLES COQUELIN.

ARBITRARY ARRESTS

ARBITRARY ARRESTS (See HABEAS CORPUS.)

ARBITRARY POWER

ARBITRARY POWER. In the common acceptation of the term arbitrary power is an act of the will not guided nor restricted by any law. It is characteristic of all absolute governments to become arbitrary, but in theory we can well conceive of a power without external limits, which would impose limits to itself and respect the limits thus self-imposed. Should such a government exist, we can readily comprehend that it would have warm adherents. Nevertheless, we believe, that in an enlightened nation, public sentiment will never be favorable to arbitrary power.

—Such power destroys morality, security, and patriotism itself; and this the more, the further it is carried. But it would be an error to look for arbitrary power only in despotic states. Frequent examples of its exercise are found under constitutional governments and even in republics, in countries governed by law and ranged by the Germans under the denomination of Rechtsstaat.Edition: current; Page: [113]
These cases of arbitrary power should be charged to the account of the discretionary power which the laws are obliged to leave to a considerable number of officials, or rather to the account of citizens who submit to the abuse of power without making use of the legal defense at their command. If the functionary knew that every act of his, not justifiable by the necessities of the case, would be brought before the higher authority of the courts, or merely before the tribunal of public opinion, by way of the press, he would think twice before assuming the responsibility of it. If no one would consent to endure arbitrary power, no one would be arbitrary.

—The word arbitrary has in addition a philosophic meaning, which must not be confounded with its vulgar sense. We shall endeavor to define this in a few words and indicate the application it finds in governmental affairs.

—The actions of men are sometimes determined by natural laws, physical or moral. Sometimes again they are not affected by any insurmountable restriction. A man can not remain suspended in the air without support; here is a physical impossibility. A man can not be grateful for evil done him; this is a moral impossibility. But he is free to grant a month's delay and, if he wishes, two or three months' to a debtor; in a word, he can accept or grant a thousand different conditions in every one of the thousand circumstances of life. This is arbitrariness, for in strictness everything not materially or morally necessary, forced, or inevitable, is arbitrary. One arbitrates, chooses, among several solutions or methods of action, that which seems preferable for some reason. Now in a large number of cases the law should have settled the question. To cite but a single example: how long an interval should be allowed a criminal between judgment and appeal? A limit is necessary; it is not established by the nature of things; it is therefore necessary to fix it by legislation. The time adopted is chosen arbitrarily, though by no means capriciously or without reflection, but it would have been possible either to lengthen or shorten it. Once a law is enacted the tribunal which enforces it exercises no arbitrary power. We have laid stress on this acceptation of the word only with the intent of bringing home to the legislator the fact that when he is obliged to fix arbitrary limits he ought before making decision, to examine everything, to hear and weigh what may be said pro and con. Laws of this category cause most harm when they have not been made with that maturity of deliberation which should never be absent in an act so important. (See ABSOLUTISM, BUREAUCRACY.)

MAURICE BLOCK.

ARBITRATION

ARBITRATION (See INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION.)

ARCHONS

ARCHONS. The archons were the principal magistrates of Athens. Their institution goes back to the eleventh century before Christ. After the death of Codrus (1045) the Athenian aristocracy, the eupatrides, like the patres in Rome at a later period, abolished royalty and replaced a hereditary king by an elective magistrate, the archon, elected for life, invested with the royal authority but responsible to his electors and chosen from a limited number of families. So long as the Doric and aristocratic elements were preponderant in Attica, the archonship retained its original character. But it was modified according as the constitution inclined to democracy, and the different reorganizations which it under went are a faithful picture of the revolutions, more and more democratic in character, of the Athenian people. After 714 (or 752) the archonship, instead of being a sort of royalty for life, was limited to ten years. Thenceforth open to all noble families, it ceased to be the exclusive appanage of an oligarchy. In 683 it received its almost final organization. Executive and judicial power, concentrated until then in a single hand, was divided among nine archons, elected for a year. Each of these had his special powers. The first, the archon eponymous, gave his name to the year, represented the state, maintained the social hierarchy, was judge of questions of civil status, and acted as the official representative of widows and orphans. The second the king archon, inherited the religious functions of ancient royalty. He looked after the ceremonies of religion, presided at the Areopagus, and had jurisdiction in criminal cases as well as in cases of sacrilege. The third, the archon polemarch, organized and commanded the army and decided disputes between citizens and strangers. All other judicial affairs were reserved to the last six archons named thesmothetæ.

—The reforms of Solon while respecting this organization did away with its sovereignty. While the archonship was rendered accessible to all citizens of the first four classes established in the state by Solon according to their fortunes, its judicial power ceased to be absolute. The archons were obliged on leaving office to render an account of their administration before the general assembly of the people, to which, from that time the real sovereignty belonged. The archon eponymous had within his jurisdiction only questions of status and inheritance. The creation of ten strateges elected annually took from the archon polemarch nearly all his military authority, and by the extension of power given the heliasts, the six archons thesmothetæ were transformed into simple examining magistrates. Aristides by a law opened the archonship to all classes of citizens. Shortly after, Pericles and Ephialtes substituted drawing by lot for election. The candidates were not admitted until after an examination, and a decision by the assembly of the people. Once in office, they continued under the supervision of the nomophylactes, new magistrates charged with maintaining the law, and who might veto every act of their administration. To sum up, their judicial power was limited to the repression of the simplest misdemeanors punishable with a
Edition: current; Page: [114]
small fine.

—Thus deprived of all their authority in favor of the people, the archons, like the consuls at Rome, survived all the governments which followed one another in Greece and their name is found in an edict of Galien in the third century of the Christian era.

M. BLOCK.

AREOPAGUS.

AREOPAGUS. The origin of the Areopagus is of such remote antiquity that the ancients themselves did not know the precise period of its establishment. When Solon, in 595, undertook to give Athens a new constitution, he found in the Areopagus, a court of justice, whose jurisdiction he extended and modified, leaving it the right which it seems to have always possessed of trying the crimes of murder, mayhem, and treason. He made it in addition a kind of conservative senate and a court of appeal. Specially commissioned to oversee the city, the education of children, and the private life of citizens, to moderate luxury, to keep up the obligation to labor, the Areopagus became by degrees a tribunal of judgment on morals, whose power rested chiefly on public opinion. It would be difficult to define nicely what its authority was. Before the assembly of the people it demanded, and often obtained, the revision or repeal of laws, of judgments and even of simple decrees; but it would seem that this was done not by virtue of any recognized right. The creation of ten tribunals of heliasts, withdrew from its jurisdiction the cognizance of the greater part of ordinary crimes, and it is permissible to suppose that the repression of sacrilege and crimes against the state was at last its only prerogative. Like all the Athenian magistracies, the Areopagus was abolished by the democratic reforms of Clisthenes, Ephialtes, and Pericles. Beginning with 459, the censorship of morals which was its principal source of power was taken away from it by Ephialtes, in spite of the protests of the aristocracy. Thenceforth the Areopagus existed as an institution venerated by all but playing no active or useful part in the state.

—The members of the Areopagus (their number was not limited) were chosen from among the ex-archons. They were appointed for life, after a solemn examination. Presided over by the second archon they passed judgment in the night with ceremonies intended to impress the imagination. Their decisions were originally without appeal, but by virtue of a privilege which we find to have existed in Rome also, the accused could escape the sentence hanging over him by voluntary exile.

M. BLOCK.

ARGENTINE CONFEDERATION

ARGENTINE CONFEDERATION. The Argentine Republic, in South America, is bounded, on the north and the east by Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Montevideo; on the southwest by the Atlantic ocean, on the south by Patagonia, and on the west by Chili. Its area inclusive of the disputed portion of the Gran Chaco is 841,000 square miles. According to the census published by the government of Buenos Ayres, in 1872, the Argentine Republic had 1,877,490 inhabitants, including the population of the national dependencies of Chaco, Misiones Pampa and Patagonia. In the republic proper, there are 1,743,355 inhabitants, of whom 897,780 are males and 845,572 females. These figures represent the civilized population. The number of savages or half breeds is about 100,000; but other authorities make it 300,000. The capitals of the fourteen provinces into which the confederation is divided contain in the aggregate 300,000 inhabitants, or about one-fourth of the whole population of the country. In the province of Buenos Ayres, one-half of the population of cities is composed of foreigners. In the fourteen provinces there are 610,432 inhabitants of cities, 1,114,160 inhabitants of rural districts, and 12,330 inhabitants of river islands.

—The mixture of races is not so great in the Argentine Confederation as in other parts of Spanish America. But the difference in habits and intellectual culture between inhabitants of cities and those of the rural districts, has created between the two classes an antagonism which, on account of the crimes and acts of violence it has caused, is second to none of the most lamentable race-antipathies recorded in history.

—During the war for independence, from 1810 to 1819, all the provinces composing the vice-royalty of La Plata were, in a measure, united. While hostilities lasted, they recognized willingly enough the supremacy of Buenos Ayres which, proud of its wealth, the intellectual superiority and the high standard of culture of its inhabitants, assumed the title of the Athens of the south. Buenos Ayres conducted the war for independence, furnished arms, money, soldiers and generals to Chili and Peru, and opposed a barrier to the invasions of Brazil, by the establishment of the state of Uruguay. The whole political drama of the Argentine Republic which, at first, seems to present, during the last fifty years, only a personal conflict, turns mainly upon the antagonism between Buenos Ayres and the provinces. Commerce and industry, and intercourse with Europe, are monopolized by Buenos Ayres; the other states of the confederation are purely agricultural countries where the primitive mode of living of the early colonists. and even the Indian life of the Guachos shepherds or nomads still exist. The alternate success of the two factions accounts for the changes in its political constitutions. Buenos Ayres imposes on the other states a uniform constitution, European codes, a regular government, civilization and its accessories, all of which do not appear equally reasonable to the rural population accustomed, as they are, to an almost savage independence. The latter naturally find allies among the lower classes in Buenos Ayres and other cities; while the notabilities and the educated, who govern Buenos Ayres according to European ideas, are supported by the rich, country land owners. It is therefore the difference between Europe and America, cosmopolitan civilization and local independence, which excites the conflict between the BlancosEdition: current; Page: [115]
and the Colorados, between the moderates and the progressionists, the unionists and the federalists. Federalism is among Latin nations, and more especially among the Latinized states of South America, the form taken by the tendency called, according to circumstances, anarchy or liberty, and which, in times of triumph, leads to sanguinary dictatorships, as was that of Rosas.

—This general observation which sums up the history of fifty years of apparent political confusion, relieves us of the necessity of entering into details of the revolutions of La Plata. It is sufficient for us here to point out the unifying or federal character of the four constitutions which there succeeded one another.

—Independence having been proclaimed, a federal constitution, modeled on that of the United States, was tried. Subsequently, between 1820 and 1827, an effort was made to effect a union of the several states. The union party, between 1820 and 1830, surrounded by an almost barbarous population, endeavored to realize all the political liberty, social reforms, and economic progress, which now constitute the programme of the most enlightened portion of the liberal European party. But the constitution of 1826, was opposed by the military chiefs, whom that instrument was intended to reduce to subordination; by the clergy, who thought their property and influence were endangered by it; and also by the inhabitants of the rural districts, the Guachos, who feared interference with their old way of living.

—The conventions which intervened in 1829, 1830, and 1831, after the overthrow of the unionist constitution of Dec. 24, 1826, reorganized the Argentine Republic on the basis of a federation which conceded to the provinces complete political independence in their internal affairs, and left them at liberty to manage their own financial affairs. The provinces guaranteed to one another full liberty in commerce and navigation. The conduct of foreign affairs was delegated to the captain general of Buenos Ayres. He was also intrusted with the conduct of the military affairs of the provinces. Rosas was clothed with these powers from 1829 to 1852.

—Rosas maintained himself in authority twenty-four years, by causing the whole national power to be vested in him by a legislature which granted everything he desired. A popular organization, La Mazorca, assisted the dictator by ridding him of his adversaries. His endless quarrels with France and England, and his struggle with Montevideo are well known.

—The constitution, adopted in 1852 after the fall of Rosas, gave a wide range to the executive power, but it also gave the country a true share in the management of its affairs. Nothing of essential importance was changed in the internal organization of the provinces. The congress, composed of a chamber of fifty representatives, and of a senate of twenty-eight members appointed by the provincial chambers of representatives, was invested with the right to take a part in the making of all laws relative to the finances, and, if need be, to take the initiative in the making of such laws. The congress was also authorized to ratify diplomatic treaties and conventions.

—From a purely political point of view, the provisions of the constitution of 1852 met with little practical opposition; but, from a financial and economical point of view the case was very different. The provinces would have been very glad to have a share in the customs duties at Buenos Ayres. On the other hand, Buenos Ayres which, under Rosas, defrayed its expenses with customs duties, was opposed to this. The utmost that Buenos Ayres would do, was after having taken from the proceeds of the customs what it needed, to relinquish the surplus to the confederation. In 1853, a conflict of interests separated Buenos Ayres from the thirteen other provinces, a separation which was continued throughout the presidency of the statesman who had placed himself at the head of the movement against Rosas. During all this time the two divisions of the Argentine Republic kept up a war of customs duties, which inured to the benefit of Rosario, a port situated on the river La Plata. Finally, in 1859, after a short struggle the two parts of the confederation concluded a peace at San José de Florez, on June 10, and Jan. 6, 1860, they signed an act of union—In the same year, the constitution was revised. The executive power is vested in a president elected for six years by the legislature. There is a vice-president who presides over the senate. The president, with the consent of the senate, appoints the cabinet ministers. The members of the chamber of representatives are required to comply with certain conditions as to age, residence, and property. Each province in the confederation has its own legislature and governor, who bears the title of captain general. Political rights are everywhere made to depend on property qualifications or the exercise of a profession. Foreigners may become naturalized after a residence of two years in the country.

—The federal capital is really Buenos Ayres; but from time to time its right to be the seat of government is contested. A law passed on Oct. 8, 1862, by the federal congress with the concurrence of the local government of Buenos Ayres, authorized the federal office-holders to reside at Buenos Ayres for five years. This limitation having expired on Oct. 8, 1862, a motion was made in the senate to have the seat of government remain in Buenos Ayres, which was to become federal property. The autonomists proposed, in imitation of the United States, to convert some unimportant territory into a federal district, and to make Rosario the capital. This last proposition was favorably received by the chamber of representatives, but rejected by the senate, but it was not decided to retain the capital at Buenos Ayres. A middle course was adopted. The federal minister of the interior restored to the governor of the province of Buenos Ayres the exercise of local jurisdiction with which the central power had been vested for five years only. In this way the national government is satisfied with the right of
Edition: current; Page: [116]
simple residence at Buenos Ayres. The proposal to transfer the capital to Rosario was renewed, without success, in 1872.

—The civil law is the same as in Spain. In commercial matters, the Bilbao ordinance still governs. The legal interests of the poor are committed to special advocates.

—Before the constitution of 1860, the Catholic religion was the state religion, but it is now only the dominant religion. All foreigners are free to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. Public education is committed to the care of a superior commission. Primary instruction, exclusively in the hands of the clergy, is in a very low state. Higher instruction is given in two colleges which are subsidized by the state. The degrees necessary to practice the professions of medicine, of law, and of the ministry, are conferred after an examination by a board of physicians, a commission composed of magistrates, and a committee of canons appointed by the bishops.

—In civil and criminal matters, there are two degrees of jurisdiction and a supreme court.

—The army is composed of 6,861 men, of whom 2,090 belong to the infantry, 2,861 to the cavalry, and 712 to the artillery, the national guard of cities not included. The staff of this small army is not so numerous as in the other Spanish republics. The navy is composed of a few small vessels, one of which mounts twelve guns.15 The resources of the state are derived mainly from customs duties. Other duties, such as stamp duties, taxes on residences and professions, do not amount to one-tenth of the receipts. The revenue receipts seem to vary between 18,000,000 and 20,000,000 dollars. The expenditure exceeds 25,000,000 dollars, and the deficit is made up by a national loan.

—The national debt is rather large: it is divided into the home debt, foreign debt and the deferred debt. The total debt of the state of Buenos Ayres proper is about 10,653,000 dollars, and of the Argentine Confederation 12,000,000 dollars. The interest on this debt varies from four to nine per cent. There is, besides, a paper money debt of nearly 400,000,000 dollars. Twenty-five of these dollars or piasters in paper are equivalent to one piaster or peso in coin.

—In 1871 the national debt was thus divided: the British loan of 1824 at six per cent. amounted to 20,764,000 francs; the British loan at three per cent. was 25,000,000; the foreign debt, 5,000,000 francs; another British loan, 56,000,000 francs; the sum due to Brazil, 6,600,000 francs; and a loan negotiated in London in 1871, at six per cent., with a sinking fund of two per cent., amounting to 150,000,000 francs. The foreign debt, therefore, amounted to 269,850,000 francs, the old home debt reached 183,500,000 francs, while the home debt, contracted since 1871, amounted to 30,000,000 francs.

—A large part of the Argentine Confederation is yet uninhabited. This country is furrowed by a magnificent system of rivers, navigable for a long distance, which renders travel
Edition: current; Page: [117]
and intercourse very easy. Its animal, vegetable, and mineral wealth is immense. The present government has done much to favor immigration, but the condition of its finances does not allow it to keep all its promises. However, although the immigrants can count, as in all other countries, only upon their own resources, the tide of immigration continues unabated. According to the last census there are in the Argentine Confederation 211,994 foreigners, of whom 151,241 are in the province of Buenos Ayres; of the latter 43,663 are Americans from the United States, 71,442 are Italians, 34,060 Spaniards, 32,383 French, 10,709 English, 5,860 Swiss, 4,997 Germans, 1,966 Portuguese, 832 Austrians, and 5,860 natives of other countries In the city of Buenos Ayres there are 88,126 foreigners, of whom 41,957 are Italians, 13,998 Spaniards, 13,402 French 12,139 Germans, 542 Austrians, and 603 Americans.

—The confederation being wholly an agricultural country, it imports from Europe nearly all the wrought and manufactured goods consumed in the republic. The English have established an important bank in Buenos Ayres. Their exports to the Argentine Confederation amounted in value, in 1863, to 33,300,000 francs, and in 1870 to 57,000,000 francs. The existing lines of railways are also in their hands. In 1864 a new company was formed with a capital of 1,600,000 pounds sterling, to open a railroad between Rosario and Cordova, the capital of the province of the same name. Besides the grant of the line, the company, with a view to colonization, also secured a grant on both sides of their line of 900,000 English acres
Edition: current; Page: [118]
of land.

—France likewise carries on a pretty extensive trade with the country. Its imports into the states crossed by the Rio de la Plata amounted to 26,000,000 francs in 1863 and in 1870, and its exports from these states reached the figure of 31,000,000 francs in 1863, and 61,000,000 in 1870. These exports consisted almost entirely of skins, peltries, wool, and other animal products.

—In 1871 there were 985 kilometres of railway in operation, 453 kilometres in process of construction, and 3,625 kilometres granted or projected. There were 2,379 miles of telegraph lines, besides 3,895 in process of construction.

ARISTOCRACY.

ARISTOCRACY. I. THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF ARISTOCRACY. The word aristocracy, taken in its etymological sense, means government by the best. Taken in this sense, all would agree that aristocracy ought to govern. If ignorance and passion did not cloud the judgment of men, they would call the most capable and most virtuous to rule in nations. This is no doubt the reason why writers of antiquity saw in aristocracy the most perfect of governments.

—At present, the word aristocracy has a far more varied meaning. It is now applied to every kind of superiority, and particularly to that of birth. It is necessary, therefore, to extricate from it the different ideas which are bound up in this one word and to see how aristocracy originates and grows. It is the duty of modern publicists to distinguish natural aristocracy from that born of convention and of law.

—To say that there is a natural aristocracy, is merely to affirm that there are inequalities resulting from nature itself. Not all the members of a savage tribe have the same degree of physical strength, adroitness, courage or intelligence. There are some who show a marked superiority in warlike leadership and government. Besides these innate gifts, age and experience count for much. The old men form what may be called the council of the tribe. Time consecrates these distinctions as is shown by the word senate (seniores), which attests the respect and importance accorded by civilized nations to men who have had a long and distinguished career. In personal merit and experience we have an aristocracy ready formed against which no theoretical objection of any value can be raised. Men have always and will always agree to grant an exceptional share of influence to the talent which serves and the wisdom which instructs and guides them, by visible marks of consideration, such as rewards and honors.

—Parallel with the source of original inequalities which is connected with the organization of each one of us, and with the use which we make of our will, there is another inequality which civilization should not abolish; we mean property, and particularly inherited property. Property even if not transmissible, would still create great differences in the relations of man to man. Just as there are educated and ignorant men, there are rich and poor men, in every nation acquainted with the division of labor and the exchange of wealth. Accordingly, those who can tolerate no species of aristocracy are forced to dream of an equal partition of property among all. But how much the hereditary transmission of landed and personal property adds to this inequality! The wealth accumulated by the father during an entire life of labor and success goes to his children to whom it is frequently but a beginning, and the means of new acquisitions. On this account, we find a purely personal aristocracy by the side of an aristocracy of family.

—Is this all? Is property the only institution developed by society? It is not. There is another, growing from day to day—the state. Political society passed through two inevitable phases, before the state was definitely constituted, although government was never entirely absent, even in nascent societies. The first phase continued while the shock and conflict of opposing and more or less anarchic wills was going on. The second witnessed the distribution of power among a certain number of chiefs. This condition approximated to feudalism. It was only later that power was concentrated, and that the state rose in its majesty and force above the divergent wills of individuals who had to be subjected to the empire of law. The aristocratic principle did not perish through this new development of the state. It now became finally fully established, and borrowed from the law the authority which it before asked only from the power of custom. The state finding an aristocracy already in existence approved an organized it, and undertook to add new elements to it. It united great families together, it called them to its councils from all parts of the territory over which its empire extended, it secured to them by wise provisions the possession of their property and titles. It can not be said that aristocracy is in this case artificial.

—When an individual has rendered eminent service to his country, the state is merely the organ of public gratitude
Edition: current; Page: [119]
in the granting to him of certain advantages. In the same way, it is but the interpreter and instrument of a natural and general sentiment in the extending of a part or all of these advantages to his family. Although we may discuss the justice, we can not the value of recognizing in the son the merits of the father. Let us remember, moreover, that this sentiment has its origin in the family itself. Is not a family proud of the merits and fame of its head, or of one of its own members who sheds lustre on its name? Are not children proud of their father as the father is of his children? This sentiment is so natural that it extends to shame as well as to glory. A single guilty person possesses the lamentable possibility of dishonoring a whole family. Thus honor becomes a treasure; whosoever increases it is exalted to the skies; whosoever brings a taint upon it robs the family of its respectability and is execrated accordingly. This pride of family which exists in all ranks of society, where it becomes the mainspring of a host of virtues and the most powerful preventive of shameful acts, is greatest in prominent families. It is the support of honor and may extend to the most absolute abnegation or the sublime; but it may also assume the character of barbarism. In these spontaneous feelings, we must recognize that selfish personality is not everything; we must see in them a solidarity which, commencing with the family, extends to the whole nation, when it assumes the character of patriotism. It is in the name of this feeling of solidarity that men have come to believe in privileged races in which are transmitted the most brilliant mental and spiritual gifts, and even a physical organization, which is considered finer and stronger than others. We can foresee the abuses and the exaggerations to which this prejudice may lead. Is the solidarity on which it rests less natural, less fundamental for that? Is it not a fact physiological, moral and social, that human qualities are hereditary? Every religion has sought and given an explanation of this fact. Solidarity in the fall and redemption of man, the community of merit, and prayer, taught by Christianity, would not receive so ready an adhesion if they did not have a basis somewhere in nature.

—Among the historical sources of aristocracy there is one which occupies an important place in the destinies of the race—conquest. There are few countries which have not presented the spectacle of at least two races, one superimposed on the other, such in antiquity as the Spartans of the Lacedemonians, not to mention the Indians and Egyptians, or the races of the other portions of the ancient east which was traversed by so many invading armies, and overthrown by so many successive revolutions. Such also were the Franks, the successors of the Romans in a portion of Gaul. Such were the Normans who imposed their yoke on the Anglo-Saxons. Conquest extends and strengthens the aristocracy already existing among the victors: the seizure and partition of conquered lands which become hereditary in the principal families give it permanency. Its numbers are increased by the accession of those who have played a brilliant part in the war of conquest and by whose services the country was won. It is very easy to see that an aristocracy thus founded on violence, will not hesitate to perpetuate itself by claiming unjust privileges. It is natural that force should be guilty of abuse, and these abuses are far reaching when there is no counterpoise to them. This conquering and warlike aristocracy is able to render service to a country, but it is evident that this service is dearly paid for. What would such an aristocracy not do to secure a monopoly of wealth and honor? It will to reach this end employ the laws the making of which it reserves exclusively to itself, not less than arbitrary power and force. It will establish a jealous line of demarcation between itself and the rest of the population. Hence the struggles between the aristocracy and the people. In Rome while the patricians were in possession of the priesthood, the religious rites, the auguries, the offices and most of the public property, they impoverished the people by violence, fraud and usury. To issue from this condition and free themselves from servitude, the plebeians demanded admission into the religious community and participation in its sacred rites. It is well known how lively and stubborn the resistance of the particians was, but they were forced to yield. There remained for the plebeians the acquisition of citizenship liberty, and the guarantee of liberty, that is, the right of property. The Romans were above all an agricultural people; their law did two things; it ordained the partition of the conquered lands and fixed limits to the extent of possession; but it was violated or eluded. History may be consulted for the recital of the long and energetic struggle which the plebeians maintained in order to shake off this crushing yoke. The office of tribune afforded them the means of regular political action. Little by little, they won admission to the highest grades of military command, to all the magistracies and finally to that of pontiff. This struggle may serve in a certain degree as a type. But there have been analogous cases. The aristocracy of France, even when scarcely more than a nobility, renewed a part of this exclusiveness toward the masses. It would agree to pay no other tax to the country than that of blood, which the people also paid while they had at the same time to defray all the expenses of the state. These are a specimen of the abuses brought about by an aristocracy, and especially by one having its origin in conquest—Let us sum up what we have to say on the origin of aristocracy. Considered in its principle, it is natural. It arises from individual differences and social circumstances. When it thus arises, it can not be considered altogether artificial, for the social state is the natural condition of man. Property and inequality of condition are necessities of the social state recognized by the law. Aristocracy is a result of these necessities, since it manifests itself as soon as
Edition: current; Page: [120]
superiority makes itself felt. Not only does it exist in countries governed aristocratically, but no people can get on without it. It has as a guarantee of its continuance, the respect which will always attend every kind of superiority, and the power of family spirit. We shall not attempt to justify in detail this aristocratic element which is recognized by nations most imbued with the principles of equality. To dispute its legitimacy, we should have to descend to an absolute equality of condition which yet would not prevent nature from distributing its gifts very unequally. The doctrine of an absolute equality of condition needs no refutation. This leveling equality such as the communists conceive it, is unjust in itself. It puts industry and idleness, foresight and thoughtlessness, virtue and vice, on the same footing; and leads to the most complete stagnation, by taking from individual effort all prospect of advancement, from capital the concentration which makes it fruitful of benefits, from men all possible leisure and all refined culture. But man is so constructed that there is but a step from use to abuse, and from evil to good. There is no institution which does not take advantage of its necessity to society to become exclusive and tyrannical.

—Such vice and suffering result from aristocracy that many persons not knowing the providential and salutary principle of its corruption and excess, have condemned the principle of aristocracy itself. The iniquities of an artificial and violent aristocracy have made men hostile to a just and natural aristocracy. To acquaint these levelers of the necessity of the aristocratic element, we have offered the preceding reflections on its source. It is to them, and to the too exclusive partisans of the political preponderance of aristocracies that we offer the following considerations, deeply convinced as we are of the principle, that no political society and no government can thrive except through a mingling of the various elements, any one of which would become fatally oppressive through exclusive domination.

—II. THE OBJECT OF ARISTOCRACY, ITS MERITS AND ITS FAULTS. Every political society has a two-fold object, its own preservation and development. Its institutions answer to this end and accomplish it each in its own way. Aristocracy, therefore, represents in society more especially solidarity and tradition, while democracy represents essentially personal merit and the spirit of innovation. Even when aristocracy plays a conservative part, it is impossible to refuse it due homage. Nations do not live from hand to mouth, and the present has need of enlightenment from all the glorious reflexes of the past. Pascal compared humanity to a single man learning continually. Aristocracy is the ballast of a ship, the play of the winds and waves. It represents perpetuity in government. Without it, the hereditary rights of families possessed neither of great fame nor wealth would soon be unprotected, for that which in the possession of the rich and powerful would be destroyed would not be suffered in the feebler and poorer. Ancient families, both in home and foreign affairs, are like the imposing figure of national power and glory. A writer of the sixteenth century, Jean Bodin, in his République, paints them in this energetic manner: "The condition of the republic is more firm and stable being fixed upon good houses, upon great immovable pillars as it were, which could not support the weight of a great structure if small and slender unless they were greater in number." But, we may ask, is this conservative part the only one which the aristocracy has to play? It is not. And here we have one of the most essential elements of the question, one which it is as dangerous as it is frequent to ignore Under pain of abdication, it is necessary that the aristocracy become an instrument of progress, and above all that it oppose no insuperable obstacles to progress. At Rome, where the aristocracy yielded only foot by foot before more than legitimate plebeian demands, it was able to live only by concessions which did not save it from finally falling under the crushing weight of the Cæsars. In England where it is so favorable to social progress, it appears with considerable éclat; it remains popular and full of life. It is in this sense and on these conditions that an aristocracy which understands its duties may be considered as an indispensable agent in civilization. It aids in every improvement. It is not merely the personification of the feeling of patriotism, but it represents it with a delicate and courageous pride. It encourages arts and letters. Without haughtiness toward inferiors, it bestows a patronage on all who labor and wish to elevate themselves, which does not humiliate. To this it adds care for the suffering. Haughty only toward the power which is ready to trample morality, justice and law under foot, it shows itself, with respect to the masses of men, more penetrated with the feeling of duty than with pride of privilege.

—This is the ideal. We need not add that no aristocracy has ever come up to it and many are scandalously remote from it. Those whose memory has been preserved to us by history present generally a mixture of the virtues and vices which the aristocratic spirit engenders successively or at once in varied proportions, according as the aristocracies in question performed their task well or ill.

—This is approximately a fair picture of their qualities and defects, when aristocracies play a preponderant or at least a prominent part in the state. We can not deny to aristocracies not altogether degenerated, a masculine energy, at times sombre and harsh, as at Rome and in the republic of Venice. They afford the best examples of the dignity and independence to be expected from individuals who, subjected to the rude trials of public life, have nothing to ask of any one.

—They commend themselves no less in times of advanced civilization, by their habits of elegance and taste than by military courage. The most striking traits of an aristocracy, in a political sense, are sequence and depth of design. The Roman senate, the
Edition: current; Page: [121]
governments of Venice and England furnish evident proofs of this. Aristocracy creates a political class devoted by occupation from youth to the study and the art of government. It is this which made it possible for a man like Pitt to be prime minister at the age of twenty-three. Many faults of an aristocracy border closely upon its good qualities; others are the opposite and mark the decay of the body itself, such as the spirit of servility under absolute monarchs. The principal faults which history finds in it are the pride of a narrow caste, the disdain of all labor except that of war, contempt for humanity which it treats as the plaything of its pleasures or as the tool of its ambition. What history is there which does not tell of, what theatre which does not show us the insolence and debauchery of the heir of a great house, and the impertinent frivolity of courtiers? Even in the bosom of aristocratic families, harshness toward woman, despotism toward children, the systematic sacrifice of the younger members of the family to the idea of primogenitureship, are traits frequently noted and to which attention has been often called. The action of customs and laws, the influence of a religion which favors sentiments of humility and charity, must tend without doubt to diminish among individuals those faults of the aristocratic spirit. But they reappear very soon again when aristocracy is left without a counterpoise. It is, therefore, indispensable to confine it within proper limits, and this applies with equal justice to all other political elements. Left to its inclinations, it is more exempt from excess than an absolute monarchy or a pure democracy. As has been shown by Aristotle and after him by Montesquieu, it tends to become an oligarchy. Under this form, it hesitates at no abuse of power and gives government a basis more and more narrow and egotistical.

—One of the most important problems of modern times will be to reconcile that part of aristocracy which is found in all society with the inevitable and just progress of democracy, which will not, even in the interest of its own continuance, descend to absolute leveling. We must see how aristocracy can adapt itself to this situation. Let us follow it then under the different forms of government and see its action under a monarchy, an exclusive aristocracy and a democracy.

—III. ARISTOCRACY UNDER A MONARCH, IN A PURELY ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, AND IN A DEMOCRACY—PROBABLE FUTURE OF ARISTOCRACY IN PURELY DEMOCRATIC STATES. There is no form of royalty, unless it be a despotism pure and simple subjecting everything to the crushing level of a uniform tyranny, which does not like to surround itself with great families. There are two reasons for this. The first is that it is natural for royalty to seek counsel and support from those whose rank brings them nearest the throne. The second consists in a certain sameness of origin and nature of royalty and aristocracy. What is a dynasty ordinarily but an aristocratic family which has reached supreme power, either by the success of arms or by rich and powerful marriage alliances, which have extended its domains and established its authority over that of its former peers? Who can fail to see also that the idea of royalty and aristocracy are the same? Both rest on the idea of inheritance. It matters little that among publicists there are some who recognize in this principle of inheritance a veritable divine right, while others see in it a purely social institution, formed less in the interest of those who enjoy it than in the interest of all. The hereditary principle which retains the same families around the same throne, becomes no less the permanent trait of royalty than of nobility. Aristocracy appears therefore in so-called limited monarchies as an intermediate and moderating body between the king and the people. When monarchy is absolute or tends to become so, it has nothing more at heart than the abasement of the aristocracy. This the monarchy did in France. It was not satisfied there with lowering the aristocracy (and let us note this well) as a feudal power; it ruined it politically by the systematic nurture of excessive centralization which crushed out all opposition and left nothing but functionaries in existence. Thus the political power of the aristocracy grew weaker and weaker until nothing remained but a haughty and brilliant nobility, vain of their titles, frivolous and brave, still occupying a number of high offices, devoted to the prince but devoid of all influence on the course of public affairs and powerless among the people. This is a picture of the French nobility under Louis XIV. and Louis XV. We know what a bitter complaint was wrung from Saint Simon by this debasement and what helpless plans were made to regenerate this fallen aristocracy which had ceased to have any point of contact with the nation. Not content with waiting in the antechambers of a minister or a courtesan, it put itself, in the person of its most illustrious representatives, at the feet of the banker Law. It is, therefore, for the general interest that aristocracy should maintain an important political position in monarchies. Otherwise royalty would fail of support, and the people be without a guide. The tendency of monarchy would be to arbitrary power, and of the people to agitation. There would be a wide field for revolution and a narrow one for liberty.

—A purely aristocratic government puts an aristocracy to the difficult test of all political powers which have no checks or balances outside themselves. Moreover aristocratic government does not necessarily always appear under the same form. It exists in England side by side on the one hand with monarchy whose object seems to be to preside over its destiny while occupying the lofty place which individual ambition would struggle to attain if it could, and on the other with the popular element which it governs, but which in our day hotly contests the mastery with it. If we suppose the aristocracy standing alone, a republic is the natural form of the aristocracy. Rome exiled its kings and became an aristocratic
Edition: current; Page: [122]
republic. Many of the Italian republics of the middle ages assumed the same form. Is it not too evident that if the republic had been maintained in England, it would not have been to the advantage of democracy? How can we help saying as much of the league in France, notwithstanding the support it met with among the people? Could the triumph of the Guises as well as that of the Protestant leaders, have had any other result than the success of a pure aristocracy? Would that pure aristocracy have proclaimed a republic? Would it have come to terms with royalty reduced to a subordinate position? That is the secret of history, one of the enigmas the solution of which we know not. The author of the "Spirit of Laws" has laid down the rules of aristocratic government. He has given to monarchy honor as its principle, to democracy virtue, and to aristocracy moderation. The somewhat subtle reasons which he assigns for this may be reduced to the following: that the nobles must be self-repressive and not turn against the people the laws of which they are the depositories and the organ. Montesquieu draws the pictures of a kind of ideal aristocratic government, which has been realized only in very few cases and at rare periods. He insists greatly on absence of pride and splendor, and on the modesty and simplicity which nobles ought to exhibit. The two principal sources of disorder should be banished from government. "extreme inequality between the governing and the governed, and the same inequality among those who govern" Montesquieu therefore blames the nobles for exempting themselves from taxes and imposing burdens upon the people. He approves taxing the principal personages of the state as well as others and even more. He fears extreme wealth among the aristocracy not less than extreme poverty. Everything which tends to equality in the aristocratic class seems good to him. "The law," he says, "ought to deprive the nobles of the right of primogeniture so that by the continual partition of property fortunes may ever tend to equality. None of the means employed to perpetuate the greatness of families should be permitted." In giving utterance to these ideas he seems to have had in mind the government of Venice which carried out these principles. He accorded extensive and even exorbitant privileges to the aristocracy in a monarchy, privileges which he refused it in a purely aristocratic state. This is not inconsistency but precaution. In a monarchic government the aristocracy is limited, in an aristocratic one it is not, and should submit itself to rules calculated to maintain its power without rendering it odious. This is why Montesquieu approves, in principle, institutions like those of the ephors at Lacedemonia and state inquisitors in Venice. "The best aristocracy," he says, "is that in which the part of the people who have no share in power is so small and poor that the party in power has no interest in oppressing it. Thus when Antipater established a rule in Athens that those who had not property to the amount of 2,000 drachmas should be excluded from the right of suffrage, he formed the best possible aristocracy, because this property qualification was so small that it excluded but very few people and none who had any consideration in the city. Aristocratic families ought therefore to be as far as possible of the people. The nearer an aristocracy approaches democracy, the more perfect it is, and it is less perfect as it approximates to monarchy. The most imperfect of all is where the part of the people which obeys is in civil slavery to those who command, as the aristocracy of Poland where the peasants are slaves of the nobles."

—It seems indeed, although he does not mention it, that Montesquieu had the English aristocracy in view when he spoke of those who do not lose connection with the great body of the people. It is not that it realizes the ideal of the simplicity and equality dreamt of by the author of the "Spirit of Laws," who recalls the lessons of philosophers and the political writers of antiquity. In England, fortunes are immense and the right of primogeniture is established. The privileges accorded the aristocracy have caused it to strike root in the clergy, the army, the navy and the colonies. But it has never separated its interests from those of the nation. By its attachment to country life it fulfills its duty as the patron of the agricultural population. It has thus avoided the sad example of the French nobility who desert their landed estates to lead an idle life in the cities. It has not thought commerce beneath it. It has taken the lead in the economic progress of the country. When we seek for the causes of the success of this great aristocracy which has thriven in presence of the ruins heaped up by revolutions in other countries, we can, I think, reduce them to the following: In the first place, local habits (that of the mingling in every-day life of great and small, rich and poor for instance) have established among the people bonds of respect and gratitude which unite them to the aristocracy. The result is to make the interests of all one. In the second place, the fortunate circumstance which has divided the British aristocracy into two camps saves them from stagnation and corruption, by introducing among them the necessary principle of competition. If there had been only whigs, the aristocracy would have been inclined to excess, to innovation which runs the risk of degenerating into revolution. If there had been only tories, their conservative tendencies would have subjected them to the no smaller inconvenience of maintaining an aristocracy in a state of stagnation and resistance. England has had the singular fortune of possessing parties more impassioned than any other but with a profound respect for the fundamental principles of the constitution. Consequently no political body since the great revolution which has settled its destinies once and forever, has been less exposed to the alternations of languor and violent crises which elsewhere have injured the political constitution of the country.
Edition: current; Page: [123]
In the third place, and the circumstance is decisive, this aristocracy has continued ready to earn the fortunes to be won in manufacturing industry and commerce, as well as the rewards of scientific and literary labor. The father of Sir Robert Peel was a cotton spinner. Macaulay, the great historian, who received the title of lord, is an instance of this intelligent liberality which brings into the ranks of the aristocracy all the social forces capable of adding to its strength and brilliancy. It has been remarked that the English aristocracy which does not hide the plebeian origin of some of its members and knows how to recruit its thinned ranks from labor as well as from the army, places birth so little in the front rank of the advantages it seeks, that the English language has no equivalent for the French words mésalliance and parvenu. This explains how a man like Fox, of a more aristocratic origin than Pitt, should have been able to remain all his life the chief representative of popular interests. This explains, too, how the tories have finished by showing themselves almost as progressive as the whigs by the sacrifice of the rotten boroughs and of the protectionist corn laws. It is certainly proper to condemn the too frequent Machiavellian policy of the aristocratic government of England with regard to foreign nations. And it must be acknowledged also that this aristocratic government has more than once shown itself harsh and corrupt at home, intolerant and oppressive to minorities. But how can we refuse our admiration to an aristocracy which has known how to correct abuses and which corrects them every day; which has conferred political equality on Ireland, emancipated the Catholics; which has given civil and political rights to the Jews, sacrificed the prohibitive system, broadened the electoral basis, proclaimed parliamentary reform, and which we doubt not will raise up against its younger sons the formidable competition of the commoners? To give the example of every kind of agricultural progress and to favor it among others by all the means of publicity and association, to watch over the material and moral wants of the laboring classes, to be occupied in remedying the unhealthiness of workmen's dwellings, to establish schools for the indigent, to tax itself heavily for the poor; to have a part in everything done for the advancement of science and the development of credit, is a noble rôle, a grand spectacle—a spectacle the more imposing and a rôle the more splendid in that the aristocracy is not seconded by the state and that it accomplishes by unceasing individual efforts more and better things than are accomplished by governmental mechanism elsewhere. We can not be astonished after this that since the fifteenth century we do not find in the history of England anything like a serious revolt of the lower against the upper classes. The aristocracy accomplished in silence the revolution which in France was so noisily accomplished on the night of the 21st of August, 1789. It gave up the tributes, the humiliating services and the privileged jurisdiction of the feudal system. To-day it has no surer ally than the agricultural classes.

—Is the democracy, which in many countries is becoming more and more important, to exclude the aristocratic element, such as we have defined it, from society and a share in public affairs? To put such a question is to answer it. If democracy condemns privileges securing the monopoly of government to a certain class unjustly favored by the laws, it can not, without injury to itself, reject the natural aristocracy born of enlightenment, services performed, and all kinds of superiority recognized and sanctioned by society. How can the political utility of the aristocratic element in a democracy be denied? Has democracy no need of tradition or restraint? The division of legislative power into two chambers even in the most democratic nations is destined in a great measure to contribute to this element. Men specially distinguished by experience and age are sent to one of these—men who have rendered brilliant services to the state, men of large possessions and known family. For if it is neither indispensable nor desirable that birth should be an absolute title to respect, it necessarily attracts the attention of men. This has been witnessed even under the recent democratic republic in France. To be the son or brother of a celebrated member of the convention became a species of republican nobility. The title of count was not bestowed on him, but the man was made a deputy or a councilor of state simply because of his name.

—Let us not rebel against these facts; they are rooted in human nature. It is no more indifferent to the public that a person is of such or such a family, than it is to foreigners that a man is born in such or such a country.

—That which is condemned and without appeal by modern thought is the proud pretension that there are certain races created to govern, while the rest must forever obey. The prejudice of race exists neither in presence of the Christian religion, which sees in all men brothers, nor in that of philosophy and the progress of thought. The pretense of the aristocratic element to become exclusive would meet with an invincible obstacle in this sentiment of equality which has descended down among the masses, and a formidable rival in the accumulations of industry and wealth. Aristocracy may go into mourning for its ancient privileges. It is scarcely to be believed that duchies will be created again for the purpose of making dukes or marquisates for marquises. The éclat of these titles which formerly rested on solid realities will disappear with the illustrious families of another age which still serve as decorations to the present; but if the top of the tree is to be severed from it, let us hope that it will not be entirely beaten down. The weighty causes which form in every society, in proportion as it is more developed, an aristocratic element, exist in democracy with this additional circumstance, that where all unjust inequality and illegal oppression have disappeared, it is necessary that superiority of every kind
Edition: current; Page: [124]
should assert itself. A democracy which does not take account of any kind of superiority, or even which does not take into account all kinds, can not escape continual and wretched agitation It will consume itself and surely fall a victim to chance and transient despotisms, with intervals of anarchy.

HENRI BAUDRILLART.

ARISTOCRATIC AND DEMOCRATIC IDEAS.

ARISTOCRATIC AND DEMOCRATIC IDEAS. The politics of democracy considers the equality of men the fundamental law of nature, the supreme law of the state. The politics of aristocracy, on the contrary, finds the basis of all political order in the natural differences between men. An equality of rights is, therefore, the fundamental principle of democracy; a preference for the nobler, that of aristocracy. Democracy hates this preference as a most damnable privilege, and aristocracy despises that equality as low vulgarity. The democrat says: "Equal rights to all citizens; to all citizens an equal share in the government; no privileges." The aristocrat says: "To the better citizen higher rights; not to the common crowd, but to the more select, belongs the preference in government."

—There is evidently a fraction of truth in both these views, but in neither the whole truth. They both fall into error, because they keep constantly striving in blind one-sidedness after their acknowledged half-truth, and do not see the other owing to their precipitateness. Equality of rights, of course, finds a very good foundation in the common nature of men. But if this alone is kept in view, and no regard paid to the equally evident differences between men, then the state is an impossibility, inasmuch as it is unthinkable without some visible distinction made between the rulers and the ruled. When no difference is admitted there can be no political order, for to order means first to discriminate or distinguish. The reproaches so often brought against democrats, that they drag what is noble down into the dust, and through their leveling processes finally place power in the hands of the lowest mob, are justified to a certain extent, because of this exaggeration of a principle correct in itself.

—Conversely, the aristocratic view can justly appeal to human history, since history emphasizes the differences between men. History, too, shows plainly the differences which move, separate, unite and distinguish them from one another. Logic can not raise any objection to the principle: the better deserve the preference in public life.

—But since aristocrats follow this fragment of truth blindly, they forget the universal, human principle which naturally binds the nobler to the common. They do not reflect that the state is, to begin with, the community of all, and not a society of the better. They thus disengage themselves from human, popular connection; and while they look down with contempt upon the low crowd which they alienate from themselves, they do not perceive that they are losing the ground from under their feet, and that their superiority, in consequence, becomes an empty privilege and fiction. Their vain and haughty overestimate of self leads to an ignominious fall, while the ridicule of the offended and despised multitude pursues them in that fall. Just as the error of both views lies in the one-sidedness with which each, clinging to its fragment of truth, severs it from the other indispensable fragment, so the whole truth lies in the union of both these fragments. We have to connect the natural equality with the historical inequality of rights, and while leaving to both ideas, as far as they are true, what belongs to them, we must avoid the errors and exaggerations into which narrow-minded democrats and aristocrats fall.

—II. Democracy says that the second law, a consequence of equality of rights, is this: "The will of the majority of citizens is the will of the people. The minority must submit to the majority." Aristocracy asserts in turn: "The better minority is not to be governed by the worse majority. Not numbers, but morality is decisive. In a well ordered state it is not a question of quantity, but of quality."

—Here again the danger lies in one-sidedness. The majority of the people is, under any circumstances, a power in the state worthy of careful consideration. The masses are the natural basis of the whole state; they constitute the greatest physical power and generally the greatest intellectual power in the state. He is no statesman who regards the masses as mere matter placed in his hands for him to play with at his pleasure. This error is dangerous, especially in our time, when even the lower masses have awakened to the consciousness that they are men, and that at least in this respect they are the equals of their rulers. But neither is he fit to rule who listens only to the wishes of the masses and serves the will of the majority, even when the majority desire for themselves what is bad and destructive, or when they, in slothful calm and heedlessness, oppose necessary reforms.

—Numbers, that is to say, the majority, are really decisive only on the supposition of equality. When the majority and minority are on an equal footing, and the latter possesses no evident superiority over the former, then only the visible superiority, that of the greater number on the side of the majority, is calculated to incline the scales in its favor. It is, therefore, a quite natural law, which, from time immemorial, has been acknowledged by all nations which have understood the meaning of law, that every assembly formed by several persons of the same position, such as a council, a chamber, a municipal body, a corporation, expresses, as a rule, its collective will through the will of the majority of its members present.

—But numbers, in other words this majority, are not decisive where a dissimilarity in the factors is presupposed. When a minority occupies a higher position in public life than the majority, then the former and not the latter should turn the balance. The different successive grades in public and judicial administration are an application of this rule. The
Edition: current; Page: [125]
higher courts are everywhere in a minority compared with the more numerous lower ones; and still the higher courts decide (of course by a majority within their own body, because the members stand all on the same level) and not the opinion of all the lower courts, even when unanimous.

—III. The contrast re-appears again in the valuation of the majority. The principle of a majority, as such, demands that that only be recognized as the majority, and consequently as the collective will, for which more than half the voting members have declared themselves. The absent can not by right come into consideration because they do not vote. This form of voting meets with an internal difficulty only when the number of votes is even and divides into two equal parts. The scales are therefore in equilibrium. If out of 100 votes there are 50 ayes and 50 nays, no party has the preponderance. Where this can not be remedied by the supposition that there being no majority, there is consequently no decision at all, then the president's vote is estimated at a higher value, so that the 50 votes with that of the president will weigh more than the other 50. The inconvenience of a tie is also avoided by granting the president no vote unless there is a tie, when he has the casting vote. In both cases the vote of the president is valued differently from that of a simple member; and the unequal value of a vote prevents the mathematical balance in voting. With the last method, however, it can happen that the vote of the president may be of less value than that of an ordinary member. In elections, the casting of lots is also resorted to in case of a tie, and the decision made by blind chance. Deciding by a relative majority is so opposed to principle that it may be used, at most, only in the case of indifferent questions, for the sake of expedition; for the relative majority is in reality often the minority, and there is no reason for giving among equal members the preference to a few over the majority. The same favoritism of the minority results from the admission of a larger than a simple majority, as for instance two-thirds, or three-fourths, because if seven out of twelve votes do not form a majority the five in opposition decide. This departure from the rule can be approved only when important interests of the minority give them increased weight, as for instance when their interest is such as to warrant their having a certain number of votes.

—IV. It is further a democratic idea that "public offices and dignities should be open to all." The aristocratic idea, on the contrary, is: "The rude and ignorant man is to be kept far from office, and access to the same is to be given only to distinguished men." The utmost consequences of the first one-sided principle are visible in the ancient democracy of Athens, where most offices were given by lot, which, although a blind method. presupposed an equal ability in all citizens, and discriminating election was rejected on principle as an aristocratic institution. The extreme application of the second method tends to the exclusion of all the lower classes of the people from office, and makes office a privilege limited to the noble classes as the only ones capable of governing. Hereditary offices are the aristocratic counterpart to the offices by lot of the democracy. Modern law endeavors by uniting these opposite principles to deprive them of their one-sidedness, and has adopted the fruitful truth: "The road to office is open to all, but only the man who distinguishes himself above others reaches the goal." Equality is the basis, distinction is the development.

—V. Frequent change of persons intrusted with public power is a democratic, permanence in place and office an aristocratic principle. Change favors the equal participation of all in public affairs, and hinders the creation of an authority placed above the people. On the other hand, permanence in office strengthens the authority of those in power and secures a hierarchy in the official aristocracy. For this reason we find short terms of office and frequent elections in all democratic states. It is clear that the exaggeration of this tendency weakens official authority which is essential in every state, and afflicts the people with a periodical election fever. But where aristocracy has a thorough, although one-sided training, all change ceases, and offices are conferred for long periods or for life, as in many aristocratic states of the middle ages, or even according to hereditary principles, on certain aristocratic families, as in the German empire. The modern states, especially monarchies, seek to unite impartially the advantages of the two opposing principles, and to avoid their defects. Where it is a question of the representation of popular interests and opinions, as in the constitution of the legislative body, the system of election at certain intervals is followed. But where it becomes a matter of filling positions of power, measures are taken to insure the firm authority of these, and also to secure the position of the official against changing opinions, without, however, having recourse to the extreme of hereditary office.

—VI. Respect for evident authority is peculiarly natural to the aristocratic mind. Long established authority is all the less doubted and all the more willingly obeyed, when people are accustomed to it from youth. On this account the aristocracy pays special respect to tradition, and seeks to preserve it from generation to generation. It has a preference for noble races and inherited distinction, clings to the right of inheritance whenever practicable. It is right in all this and perverts the right only through exaggeration, by opposing with stubborn enmity newly budding life, and claiming for the vanquished and dead, rights which belong only to the living. In contrast with this, democrats lay especial emphasis on popular liberty, and demand free movement for the masses. Not tradition but the national will of the time is the lauded fountain of right at which they drink. They do not deny the power of tradition, but they will not be hindered by it in their path toward the desired end. Wherever
Edition: current; Page: [126]
tradition stands as a barrier in their way, they break through it without hesitation. Democratic opinion is easily deceived by taking the reasonable will of the people and the capricious or passionate whim of the crowd as the same thing, and to judge as right what is pleasing to the latter without considering that before all, right is, exists, and has not to be made; that it must be recognized and respected, not established at will. It also confounds freedom of the people with the domination of the people, and thinks the first is secured and realized most easily by adopting and exercising the latter. But in a healthy civil and political organism, authority and freedom, repose and movement, right of inheritance and progress, tradition and law, exist not isolated from, but connected with, each other.

—VII. The splendor of authority and the dignity of its formal appearance are also characteristic traits of aristocracy; democratic opinion sets little value on this, and even almost fears that the equality of citizens will be put in jeopardy by the choice robes of their dignitaries; and universal freedom endangered by the solemn pomp of public authority. Used in moderation (and the immoderate ceases to be beautiful) a noble form of outward appearance serves to show forth the dignity of the state and increase respect for it. The difference in the two theories is well illustrated in public buildings. The public utility of such buildings which is the thing first, and sometimes exclusively considered by the democracy, is of course not to be lightly thought of, and is in every case, practically, the chief consideration. But beauty and ornament, which are generally the work of an aristocracy—as artistic gifts and distinction are by nature aristocratic—lend public buildings also an ideal value and have an elevating and ennobling influence on the minds of the people generally. In this respect the Athenians, in other regards extravagantly democratic, were highly aristocratic. As aristocratic natures have a fine understanding for dignity of form in general, so also they have a lively sense of personal honor. The rising of aristocrats from the masses has always been accompanied by an increase in their feeling of honor. A nobility can better afford to surrender power than honor. When this feeling of honor, however, degenerates into an insolent overestimate of self and a contempt of the lower classes, it goes beyond its bounds; but in a healthy state the feeling of honor is a great moral power. The democratic mind places all value in the general human and national honor, and disregards or even hates any higher degree of honor. This general feeling of honor is indeed the most important, and a people in whom the feeling of human dignity is active, has reached, indeed, a high degree of civilization. It is also the natural foundation of all higher honor which springs forth like a blossom from the stem. The democratic envy which strives to pull down everything which struggles upward deserves to be punished with contempt. But the democratic desire for a recognition of the honor of man, is well founded in the divine order of things. If man is created in the image of God, then man as such has a just claim to the recognition and protection of his honor. Here, too, the popular democratic doctrine of honor appears as the foundation; but the special growth of higher honor, as an aristocratic development.

J. C. BLUNTSCHLI.

ARITHMETIC

ARITHMETIC, Political. Three different meanings are attached to this word, which was more used during the last century, than in our day, and which is rarely found in contemporary political economy. Some use it in a rather vague way, applying it to reflections upon social economy in general, or more especially to researches on population, agriculture, etc.; others employ it as a synonym for the science of statistics, calling to its aid political economy, to explain the causes and significance of the facts established by figures; to others still, it means simply the calculations and processes, arithmetical or algebraic, by the aid of which, from these facts, inductions and conclusions are formed which have not been directly established, but which are admitted by way of analogy, proportionality or probability.

—Arthur Young published under this title a work in which there are scarcely any figures, and which treats of the causes which, in his time, had made agriculture flourish in Great Britain, and of the causes which stood in the way of the advance of that great industry in other lands. His French translator, Freville, compiled from a work of Arbuthnot, also translated from the English, a volume, under the same title, upon the utility of large farms, and another volume without the name of the author, likewise translated from the English, treating of the condition of agriculture in the British Islands. The term political arithmetic was therefore used by Young and his translator in the first sense.

—It is in the last sense, however, that it is used by J. B. Say, who has devoted a chapter to it in his Cours, (part 9, chap. 3.) It is in this last sense that it should be used in order to avoid confusion in the terminology of economical science.

—M. Moreau de Jonnès in his Eléments de statistique, made political arithmetic, understood in the sense of J. B. Say, one of the two methods of statistics. He terms it the method of induction in contradistinction to the method of exposition which he recommends by way of preference, and which consists in registering all the numerical data, that constitute the elements of a given subject, in grouping, combining and even reducing them, or, to speak more correctly, in co-ordinating without altering them.

—When Vauban, at the commencement of the 18th century, estimated the agricultural products and the revenue of France, upon the basis of the investigations which he had made in a small number of localities; when Lavoisier, in 1790, calculated from the number of plows the extent of land under cultivation, and the amount of production and consumption in France; when Lagrange estimated
Edition: current; Page: [127]
the consumption of food by the whole population on the basis of that of a soldier, by supposing that one-fifth of the inhabitants were under ten years of age, and that two children and one woman consumed only as much as one man; when Necker, not venturing to undertake a general census, in 1784, calculated the number of inhabitants from the number of births, by adopting the ratio of one birth to every 25 inhabitants; when Chaptal, in 1818, gave the extent of arable lands, of vineyards, meadows and forests of the whole of France, at a seventh of the surveyed territory, and starting from the hypothesis that the other six-sevenths were identical in extent, with the first, as well in natural quality as in the uses made of them. Vauban, Lavoisier, Lagrange, Necker and Chaptal were workers in political arithmetic. When Arthur Young hit upon the idea of cutting up the map of France, estimating the parts and drawing conclusions from the notes he had been able to make upon certain localities, he pushed this method to the limits of possibility. "When one studies," says M. Moreau de Jonnès "the results which Vauban and Lavoisier have obtained by these strange processes, we are astonished to find in them all the characteristics of truth, and we are tempted to believe that there are men of genius who are endowed with the prescience of numbers and whose penetrating minds reach their object even following a vicious method. We can not refuse this preëminence to Necker, who was guided by the example of two distinguished statisticians, Messance and Montyon, and who surrounded himself with all the data necessary to eliminate error."

—We can easily see to what errors these calculations applied to the facts established by statistics might lead, and understand by the use to which they have sometimes been put, the discredit into which the works of certain statisticians, quite unworthy of the name, have fallen. It would be very wrong to confound with such men those who collect facts with intelligence, perseverance and honesty; who correct one method by the other; who use the processes of induction and the rule of three only with the greatest circumspection; and reason solely upon facts or figures drawn from a good source; who draw conclusions only from the particular to the general, taking local or even accidental facts and applying them to a whole country or an entire epoch.

—A writer who respects himself should have nothing to do with political arithmetic, unless he has no other means of calculation, and in this case itself, it is his duty to be sure of the solidity and exactness of the bases upon which he grounds his reasoning. This, several writers or publicists, of our day, who have discussed facts relative to poverty or other delicate questions of social economy, seem to have forgotten.

—There is a branch of arithmetic which has been remarkably developed, and which to-day constitutes a science apart. We mean the calculus of probabilities, that is to say the application of calculation to questions of insurance, of life annuities.

JOSEPH GARNIER.

ARIZONA

ARIZONA, a territory of the United States, originally part of the territory of New Mexico, was organized by act of Feb. 24, 1863. Its present territory consists of parts of the Mexican cession and the Gadsden purchase (see ANNEXATIONS, IV., V.). The southeastern part of its former territory, below the parallel of 37°, now belongs to Nevada. (See TERRITORIES.)

A. J.

ARKANSAS

ARKANSAS, a state of the American Union, formed from the Louisiana purchase (see ANNEXATIONS, I.; LOUISIANA). It was separated from Missouri as Arkansaw territory by act of March 2, 1819. No enabling act was passed, but a popular convention, Jan. 4, 1836, claiming "the right of admission into the Union, consistent with the federal constitution, and by virtue of the treaty of cession by France," formed a state constitution (see TERRITORIES), and under this Arkansas, after much opposition, was admitted by act of June 15, 1836. The boundaries of the state were fixed by the constitution as follows: "Beginning in the middle of the Mississippi river at the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude: thence west to the St. Francis river; thence up the St. Francis river to the parallel of 36° north latitude; thence west with the Missouri boundary line, and south with the Indian territory boundary, the Red river, and the Mexican (Texas) boundary to Louisiana; thence with the Louisiana boundary to the Mississippi and up the Mississippi to the place of beginning."

—The constitution fixed the capital at Little Rock. The governor was to hold office for four years. The powers of the legislature as to slavery were similar to those of Alabama. The state was made suable in its own courts, but this privilege was abolished by amendment, Feb. 12, 1859.

—In politics the state was steadily democratic in both presidential and state elections until the close of the rebellion. A whig opposition was maintained until 1856. In 1849, in a scarcely contested election, the vote for governor was 3,290 democratic, and 3,228 whig; but in all other years the whig vote was generally about thirty per cent. of the total vote. After 1856 the American party, or know-nothings, and the constitutional union party, took the place of the whigs with about the same proportion of the total vote.

—In 1861 the state at first showed no disposition to secede, preferring "co-operation" (see BORDER STATES, SECESSION). In state convention, March 18, a conditional ordinance of secession, to be submitted to popular vote, was defeated by a vote of 39 to 35. Instead of it an ordinance was unanimously passed submitting to the people, at an election to be held on the first Monday of August, a choice between secession and co-operation. The convention was to be re-convened and its action governed by the result of the election. The proclamation of president Lincoln, April 15, (see REBELLION) and a demand for a quota of troops from Arkansas to enforce it, caused the re-assembling of the convention, which passed an ordinance of secession, May 6, by a vote of 69 to 1. It purported to repeal,
Edition: current; Page: [128]
abrogate, and set aside all laws and ordinances whereby the state had become a member of the Union, to dissolve the union existing between Arkansas and the other states, to resume to Arkansas the powers delegated to the federal government, to absolve her citizens from all allegiance to the United States, and to re instate Arkansas in the rights and sovereignty of a free and independent state. May 18, the state was admitted as one of the confederate states.

—The people of the section of the state north of the Arkansas river seem to have been unionists from the beginning, for arrests of suspected persons by the confederate and state authorities in that part of the state became general toward the end of 1861. In September, 1863, Little Rock was captured by the federal army, and steps were immediately taken to reorganize the state government. By special orders from president Lincoln an election was called for March 28, 1864, but in the meantime a state convention had formed a new constitution which abolished slavery and repudiated the right of secession and the rebel debt, but restricted the right of suffrage to white male citizens. The constitution was ratified and state officers chosen, March 14. In September the confederate forces regained about two-thirds of the state and reorganized their legislature, but within a month they had again lost the state, this time forever. The "loyal" state government retained control of the state until its functions were suspended by the act of March 2, 1867 (see RECONSTRUCTION). Under the provisions of this act a state convention met Jan. 7, 1868, and adopted a new constitution which acknowledged paramount allegiance to be due to the United States, denied the right of secession, made suffrage universal (excepting persons under disabilities by the 14th amendment), and repudiated the rebel debt. This constitution was ratified March 13, 1868, and the state was re-admitted June 22. The state passed at once under republican control, and the disfranchised classes kept up an intermittent disturbance of the public peace for some years. In 1870 a section of the dominant party, commonly known as "brindletails," became dissatisfied with the republican administration and joined the democrats in assailing it and impeaching the governor for bribery and corruption. In 1872 the republican governor ordered the registration law of 1871 to be disregarded and the law of 1868 to be followed, thus again disfranchising the persons whose disabilities had been removed since 1868. The legislature, in January, 1873, canvassed the votes thus cast and declared Baxter, the regular republican candidate, elected by 3,111 majority; but the democrats claimed a majority of 1,598 for Joseph Brooks, the brindletail candidate, indorsed by the democrats. Brooks, after several suits in different courts, obtained judgment of ouster against Baxter in a circuit court, and seized the public buildings by an armed force, April 15, 1874. Civil war followed until the legislature met, May 13, and called for federal interposition. This was at once given, and the Brooks forces were disbanded. The principal result of the disturbance was the calling of a state convention for July 14, 1874. It formed a new constitution, which was ratified by popular vote. In addition to the provisions above given of the previous constitution, it took away all patronage from the governor and reduced his term of office to two years; prohibited him from suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and from proclaiming martial law; and abolished all registration laws. The state has since been democratic.

—The name of the state is taken from that of its principal river, an Indian word which has no known meaning, but has no connection with the name of Kansas. Its pronunciation was declared to be Arkansaw by a resolution of the state senate in 1881. The state is popularly known as The Bear State, from the supporters of its coat of arms.

—See Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; Tribune Almanac, 1838-81: Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1861-80; and authorities cited under SECESSION and REBELLION. No history of Arkansas has been published. On the question of its admission as a state, see TERRITORIES; 1 Benton's Thirty Years' View, 627; 12, 13 Benton's Debates of Congress. The act of March 2, 1819, is in 3 Stat. at Large, 493; the act of June 15, 1836, 5 Stat. at Large, 50.

ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

ARMISTICE

ARMISTICE. In the course of a war, it frequently happens that hostilities are suspended for a time. At the close of an engagement it is agreed, between the belligerent parties, to stop operations, for a short period, in order to bury the dead. The commanders of contending armies may wish to hold a conference, to have a parley, or to enter into an arrangement for the surrender of a besieged place. There may also be other reasons for a suspension of hostilities, at a given time or place. These suspensions are ordinarily of short duration, and, therefore, are called simply suspensions of arms, especially when they are only temporary, and hostilities may be resumed without any previous notice. But there are circumstances in which suspensions of arms are prolonged, as, for instance, when both parties feel that an effort should be made for the restoration of peace. A protracted cessation of hostilities, mutually agreed on by the belligerents, is called an armistice.

—The term truce which seems to have fallen out of use in diplomatic language, can properly be applied only to a general armistice of long duration.

—When the hope of restoring
Edition: current; Page: [129]
peace makes it advisable that an armistice should be sought for, and the belligerents wish to enter into negotiations to that end, it is customary to begin with an agreement that hostilities shall be suspended at all points, sometimes without previous stipulation as to what shall be the duration of the armistice.

—Although an armistice is only a military convention, it is obligatory, not merely on armies but on nations themselves, in the same way as international treaties are binding. Hence, the breaking of an armistice has always been considered one of the gravest violations of the law of nations. A suspension of arms should, therefore, be concluded in the name of the sovereign, and by persons having power to bind the country. It is generally assumed that the commander in chief of an army receives with his commission, the power to make any agreement of a military character. He is authorized to appoint, from among his officers, the commissioners and plenipotentiaries charged with the duty of concluding a military contract, reserving to himself the right to ratify it. This authority is not even restricted to the person of the commander-in-chief. The commander of a detached or an isolated corps, who is not in direct or immediate communication with his superior officers, may properly agree to a particular armistice, so far as it concerns the corps or the detachment under his command. When there is question of a general armistice, it is usually understood that such an armistice is a convention more political than military in its nature; and even a commander in-chief should not agree to the terms of such a convention, if he be not specially authorized to do so by his government, and if there be not a previous understanding to that effect between the rulers of the belligerent nations.

—There are instances of armistices having been concluded directly between one government and another, through the medium of their representatives or ministers; but in most cases, even when the suspension is general, of long duration, and agreed upon by the governments of the belligerent parties, the military authority is charged with the drawing up of the terms of the armistice, and with the care of its execution.

—The duration of an armistice must be agreed upon in the terms of the armistice itself, and this must be done with the utmost precision, that a renewal of hostilities may not be feared while one party is under the impression that the armistice has not expired. Even when the duration of an armistice is long or uncertain, it is customary not to resume military operations until after due notice has been given, declaring the armistice at an end. On the occasion of a memorable armistice concluded in 1813, at Plesswitz, in Silesia, between the French army on the one side, and the Russian and Prussian armies on the other, the following provision was inserted in the text of the agreement: "The armistice shall last until July 20th, inclusive, and six days more, during which to give notice of its termination. Hence, hostilities shall not be renewed until six days after the armistice shall have been declared at an end, at the headquarters of the respective armies." Subsequently the armistice having been prolonged, the following clause was added: "The armistice shall be prolonged until the 10th of August. Neither of the contending parties shall declare the armistice at an end before that time. If, at the expiration of that time, the armistice shall be declared at an end by either of the interested parties, then six days' notice thereof, shall be given. Therefore, hostilities shall not be renewed until six days after the armistice shall have been declared at an end."

—The declaration of the expiration of an armistice is all the more indispensable when the duration of the armistice has not been previously fixed.

—An armistice is binding from the day it is concluded; but military commanders, charged with its execution, are responsible for its observance only from the day they are notified of the armistice. Hence, an armistice should be promulgated, and governments are responsible for the damage caused by too tardy a notification of the fact of its existence.

—During an armistice, armies ordinarily maintain their respective positions, and can not rightfully commit any hostile act Hence, besiegers can not prosecute their offensive operations, nor the besieged throw up new works of defense, repair their breaches, etc. But there is nothing to prevent each of the belligerent parties from availing itself of the suspension of arms, to do, within its own borders, anything to improve its position, such as to levy troops, provide supplies, etc. Neither party is bound to maintain a strict statu quo, save within the limits embraced in the armistice, and as to matters relating to the armistice.

—It depends on the terms of the armistice whether the citizens of hostile states may freely trade with one another, whether passports are necessary, and who may issue them. Many other things depend upon the terms of the armistice. Thus, the re-victualing of a fortress during an armistice may be sometimes allowed, for instance when the position is of little importance, or its capture is certain within a short time: but the re-victualing of a fortress should be denied when its capture might decide the fate of the war. It is evident that it is better to decline an armistice than grant an advantage for which there could be no equivalent.

—The whole law of armistices may be reduced to one principle: provide for as many contingencies as possible.

ROYER COLLARD.

ARMIES

ARMIES, Standing. The first half of the 19th century will be forever memorable in the history of mankind as the most productive period in industrial wonders. The results which we have succeeded in obtaining from steam, from atmospheric pressure, from electricity, and other natural forces are, in certain respects, so wonderful, that had they been predicted a century ago, such a prediction would have been regarded as an extravagant illusion.

—Who, for instance, in 1750, could have believed that we should find in
Edition: current; Page: [130]
the expansive force of steam a power of such utility as compared with which all human and animal strength would scarcely admit of comparison; and that this force when applied to great ships would impel them against the most rapid currents, and across the whole width of the Atlantic in eight days; that when applied to our railroads, we would be able to travel at the rate of from 45 to 60 miles an hour; that our cities and dwellings would be brilliantly illuminated with a gas extracted from coal; that an engineer would search in the bowels of the earth, at a depth of 1,700 feet beneath the soil of Paris for an inexhaustible fountain of pure water, which he would cause to spout to a height of 60 feet above that same soil; that an artist would be able to compel rays of light to work for him, that is to say, to fix permanently the image of objects, with an exactness and faithfulness that neither the pencil nor the brush will ever be able to equal; that we would succeed, at last, by means of the electric telegraph, in subduing an invisible, intangible agent, of a nature entirely unknown to us, to such an extent as to compel it at will to transmit words at the distance of hundreds and thousands of miles? Assuredly, if these wonders and many others could have been predicted a hundred years ago, their prediction would have been overwhelmed with ridicule.

—Nevertheless, whatever power these unlooked-for evidences of progress may have added to our productive agents, to our comfort and civilization, our social existence remains imperfect, or improves but very slowly; politics, so far from following in the wake of industrial progress, actually seems to retrograde; the conditions of its amelioration appear so uncertain, or are so generally ignored, that after decades of commotion and of revolution, France, for instance, is still in search of a form of government which will be able, without the imposition of too heavy taxes, to fairly guarantee its freedom and protection.

—It is here that human intelligence has to contend not only against forces which bend to its service from the moment their secrets are discovered, but against passion, against old prejudices propped up by vanity, against interests founded on ignorance and injustice. These obstacles, however, are not insurmountable; and although they may be able to retard the progress of political or economic order, they can not stop that progress, for the truths of this order, as they become better known, derive very great support from all interests suffering unjustly, while time inevitably weakens everything founded on error or iniquity.

—The political reform of the greatest consequence and the one most earnestly demanded by the requirements of the age will consist, if not entirely doing away with, at least in greatly lessening the standing armies maintained by the nations of Europe. We venture to assert that this reform will take effect in the near future, however opposed by the ambition of certain classes, and the pusillanimity of others. It seems to us impossible that Europe, industrious and civilized Europe, can for any length of time persist in that strange policy, which, spite of the evident wishes of its citizens to avoid all international warfare, and notwithstanding the effective peace of thirty years which preceded the revolutionary crisis of 1848, has compelled them to maintain both land and sea armaments more extensive and more ruinous than they had ever been before.

—It is now some time since enlightened men of the United States, of England, of Germany, and of France exerted themselves to give practical effect to the idea of extirpating this cause of ruin and misery which, everywhere diametrically opposed to industrial pursuits, renders almost null the most brilliant and most fruitful discoveries for the bettering the condition of the masses. The idea of the Abbé de Saint Pierre, considered chimerical by many, that of substituting arbitration for brute force in great international questions, obtained in England such a number of supporters as to induce Mr. Cobden, the famous leader of the free trade party, to believe it possible to successfully bring the subject before the house of commons. In a session of parliament he made a motion tending to commit the English government to the policy advocated by the Abbé de St. Pierre; and this motion, notwithstanding its somewhat unusual and eccentric nature, was supported by seventy-nine votes. If one reflects upon the determination that the English have ever evinced in the matter of reforms, of which they have once felt the propriety or usefulness; if we will but call to mind what obstacles, apparently insurmountable, have been overcome by the agitators of the abolition of slavery, the changes effected in the system of promotion, in the old laws of navigation, etc., we can not but hope that a new idea which in its very incipiency obtained 79 adherents in the national parliament, is destined to triumph in a future not far off; and if the English government some day joins sides and co-operates with the advocates of this measure, and furthers their salutary wishes with that immense influence which it exerts in Europe and the world over, the system of great standing armies will indeed be near its dissolution.

—It will most probably be in France that this great reform will meet with the greatest opposition. The French people are as a class imbued with what is called "the military spirit," which is nothing else than a spirit of silly vanity, with a touch of aversion for useful labor. It appears as if the French were to make good the prediction of Montesquieu: "The military of France will be its ruin." However, the French working classes begin to understand that this military spirit is one of the causes which have most impeded the amelioration of their condition. They are still, indeed, imbued with a large amount of national vanity. The words: "preëminence, supremacy of France," still sway their minds a great deal too much, and they are only too easily governed by the notion that it becomes
Edition: current; Page: [131]
them to dictate the destinies of other nations; but they no longer admit the right of maintaining at their expense, in times of peace, of from 400,000 to 500,000 men. This agency of ruin now finds its only supports in those directly interested in its continued existence, and in the exaggerated fears of an influential but relatively small portion of the population. Even in France then we may look for the growth and spread of the principle which seeks to deliver the nations of Europe from the greatest part of the burden imposed upon them by their standing armies. Now one of the most efficacious methods of accelerating the progress of this principle, is to keep constantly before the public eye a statement of the enormous sacrifices required for the maintenance of large armies.

—Among the number of economists who have busied themselves with the nature and formation of forces necessary for purposes of national defense and to the maintenance of state government, Adam Smith is, as far as we know, the only one who considered a standing army preferable to a national militia force. According to him the civilization of a country could not be perpetuated or preserved long without a standing army. This opinion he dwells upon at length in the first chapter of the 5th book of his "Wealth of Nations," but his statements indicate that he based his opinions on a social condition of affairs which has long ceased to prevail among the states of Europe. We can judge of this from the following extract: "When a civilized nation depends for its defense upon a militia, it is at all times exposed to be conquered by any barbarous nation which happens to be in its neighborhood. The frequent conquests of all the civilized countries in Asia by the Tartars, sufficiently demonstrates the natural superiority which the militia of a barbarous has over that of a civilized nation. A well regulated standing army is superior to every militia. Such an army, as it can best be maintained by an opulent and civilized nation, can alone defend such a nation against the invasion of a poor and barbarous neighbor. It is only by means of a standing army, therefore, that the civilization of any country can be perpetuated, or even preserved for any considerable time."

—J. B. Say thinks, that far from protecting national independence, a great military establishment is that which compromises it the most, by reason of the aggressive tendencies which it incites among those who have the control of it. "England," he says, "would not have interfered with the intrigues of all Europe, if she had not been possessed of great fleets which she could send out in all directions; and Napoleon, if he had not had at his command the bravest and the best drilled troops of the world, would have directed his ambition toward ameliorating the affairs of France." In this way, the very existence of large armaments incite to war; and war always brings about, in the end, cruel retaliation on those who provoked it. "The ambassadors of Louis XIV.," adds J. B. Say, "at the congress of Gertruydenberg were obliged to be silent spectators at the deliberations concerning their master's fate." England, in its war with America, was compelled to surrender its sovereignty over the colonies, and, later on, it was her insular position alone that saved her from threatened invasion. Bonaparte, with a better army than that of any other nation, suffered a more signal defeat than all others. Everywhere the more formidable the army, the more inevitably has it been the cause of war and all its attendant evils. There is not one that has ever saved its country from invasion. J. B. Say further considers whether, in the present condition of Europe, militia forces would be sufficient to preserve the independence of the individual states, and relying upon the opinion of experienced military men, such as Guibert, Lieutenant General Tarayre and others, he decides the question in the affirmative; only, he thinks that for the military corps which require an intricate course of instruction, as the engineers, the artillery and the cavalry, which could not be formed at a moment's notice, permanent provision must be made, but only to such an extent as a purely defensive system may demand. He shows how the maintenance of large naval forces, usually justified on the grounds of protecting and extending commerce, is ruinous to nations, and how little, in reality, they contribute to the extension of commerce. The fact of England's great commerce proves nothing in favor of the excessive increase of its marine service, for its commerce would be quite as great without this appendage. "Is it with sword in hand," asks Say, "that business is successfully transacted? The reason that England can sell her wares as well in the Archipelago, as in the East, and in America, both north and south, is because she understands how to manufacture those things which the consumers of those various countries require, and can make them cheap. Her cannon has nothing to do with it." (J B. Say, Cours Complet, vol. ii. pp. 280-297.). The maritime commerce of the United States is next to that of England the most extensive, and will probably soon equal and even surpass it, and yet the naval power of that great republic is one of the least important. As regards the naval service of France, we can not do better than quote from the excellent remarks on the subject by Mons. Bastiat: "Is a powerful naval service not necessary, it is asked, in order to open up to our commerce new foreign markets? Truly the measures of government in respect to commerce are singular! It begins by flattering it, impeding it, restraining it, and that at enormous expense; then, if any small portion of it has escaped its vigilance, at once government is seized with a tender solicitude for the petty articles which have successfully eluded the meshes of the custom house. We wish to protect our merchants, it is said, and for that reason we exact another 150 millions from the people, in
Edition: current; Page: [132]
order to cover the seas with armed vessels. But, in the first place, ninety-nine hundreths of the commerce of France is with countries where our flag-ships have never yet, and never will be seen. Have we naval stations in England, or in the United States, in Belgium, in Spain, in the Zollverein, or in Russia? And so we are taxed more in francs than we will ever possibly gain in centimes from the trade of those places.

—Moreover, what is it that establishes new channels of commerce? One thing alone, viz.: cheapness. Send where you will goods which cost five or six cents more than like goods of English or Scotch manufacture, neither your ships nor your cannon will effect a sale of them for you. Send thither products five or six cents cheaper, and you will have no need of either cannon or ships to enable you to dispose of them. Is it not a fact, that Switzerland, with not even a brigantine, unless it be on its lakes, has driven from Gibraltar itself certain qualities of English goods, and this spite of the guard ever at its gates? If then cheapness be the sure protector of commerce, in what manner is it that our government sets about to take advantage of it? In the first place, it raises, by its tariff, the price of raw material, of all the instruments of labor, of all articles of consumption; and in the next place, under the pretext of sending out vessels in search of new channels of commerce, it overburdens us with taxes. It is stupidity, the grossest stupidity; and the time is not far off when it will be said of us: The French people of the 19th century had strange systems of commerce, but they ought at least to have refrained from believing themselves to have already reached the epoch of universal knowledge. A very able German author, Mr. Rotteck, published, in 1816, an important work entitled, "Standing Armies and National Militia." He proves, from the history of all wars, from those of the most ancient peoples down to the termination of the wars of 1815, that standing armies, or paid troops, under the sole control of their officers, and knowing no duty but toward them, have never served except to destroy the liberty of nations, and that the liberty and independence of subject peoples has been regained only by its citizen soldiery. "When France had to defend its liberty against the allied sovereigns," he says, "it was the citizen soldiery, mere raw recruits, who effected the triumph of the revolution, and later it was the militia of the Germans, that restored the independence of their fatherland." Mr. Rotteck in that work lays special stress on the mischievous influence of a standing army upon the morals of a people, particularly as it weakens among all classes of citizens the feeling of responsibility, by habituating them to rely upon others for the defense of their dearest interests, and tends but to relax those bonds of solidarity which would otherwise exist.

—"A nation," says Mr. Rotteck, "which surrenders the defense of its liberties to any special class, becomes cowardly and incapable of opposing the most unjust aggression."

—The same thought has been elaborated by an eminent French author. "What innumerable pretexts for war do you not cultivate by the creation of an army of which each member has a career to work out, and in which war is the primary, the only means of success! And the existence of an army of this nature is rendered the more serious, as it is almost impossible to change its tendency, inasmuch as it is not to be expected that men will willingly remain stationary in a profession once embraced as the business of life. * * * Let us add that if such an army by its natural bent is ever ready to compromise our safety, it compromises that safety still more by the extreme weakness to which it reduces us. While it increases our dangers, it at the same time paralyzes the greatest part of our national strength. It dwarfs the nation; it reduces it, in a certain sense, to the size of the army. France, in relation to her enemies, is no longer a people of 30 millions; she is a power of three hundred thousand men. All her strength is inventoried in the roll call of her troops. Beyond this, one sees but a sparse population, inactive, feeble in proportion as the army is strong; and, as they believe themselves, exempt from the necessity of self-defense. * * * * * Is such an army the best guarantee of our liberties? In order to determine this question, it is sufficient to consider what there is in common between the interests of liberty and the interests of the army as established by the law of enlistment. That law, as we have said, makes a profession of the military service. Are the interests of that profession compatible with those of liberty? Is it possible that the army should prosper, and at the same time that liberty should flourish? The profession of arms flourishes in times of war, liberty in times of peace. The army flourishes by the tribute it exacts, and liberty by labor. The greatest interest of liberty is to curtail power, while to extend it is of the greatest importance to the army. One of the chief interests of the army is to yield nothing to the spirit of reform, because, were this desire for reformation to prevail, it might extend even to the army itself. * * * * * It is evident that as regards liberty and the profession of arms there exists no conditions of mutual welfare, that the very reverse is the case, and that members of the army, professional soldiers, as such, far from having the interests of liberty to defend, have but the interests of despotism to maintain. It might be true, undoubtedly, that an army such as ours would not lend itself to the maintenance of despotism; but this is rather a disposition we could wish it to have, than one we can do it the honor of attributing to its nature."

—It has been frequently urged that militia or a national guard would never acquire that disposition and those habits of discipline which constitute the strength of standing armies; but this assertion, which has some foundation, perhaps, in the case of the militia of those states which have
Edition: current; Page: [133]
for a long time past maintained great standing armies, and the militia of which, consequently, is almost reduced to a service of parade, is not at all applicable to the militia which constitute the sole defensive force of their country. The militia of Switzerland have often enough proved that they could sustain the fight against the best troops, and as much can be said of those of the United States. There is nothing that appears to us more instructive and more fit to shake the prejudices prevailing on the subject with which we are engaged than the testimony which we are about to adduce. It is taken from the message addressed to the congress of the Union in December, 1848, by president Polk:—"One of the most important results of the war into which we were recently forced with a neighboring nation, is the demonstration it has afforded of the military strength of our country. Before the late war with Mexico. European and other foreign powers entertained imperfect and erroneous views of our physical strength as a nation, and of our ability to prosecute war, and especially a war waged out of our own country. They saw that our standing army on the peace establishment did not exceed 10,000 men. Accustomed themselves to maintain in peace large standing armies for the protection of thrones against their own subjects, as well as against foreign enemies, they had not conceived that it was possible for a nation without such an army, well disciplined and of long service, to wage war successfully. They held in low repute our militia, and were far from regarding them as an effective force, unless it might be for temporary defensive operations when invaded on our own soil. The events of the late war with Mexico have not only undeceived them, but have removed erroneous impressions which prevailed to some extent even among a portion of our own countrymen. That war has demonstrated, that upon the breaking out of hostilities not anticipated, and for which no previous preparation had been made a volunteer army of citizen-soldiers equal to veteran troops, and in numbers equal to any emergency, can in a short period be brought into the field. Unlike what would have occurred in any other country, we were under no necessity of resorting to drafts or conscriptions. On the contrary, such was the number of volunteers who patriotically tendered their services, that the chief difficulty was in making selections and determining who should be disappointed and compelled to remain at home. Our citizen-soldiers are unlike those drawn from the population of any other country. They are composed indiscriminately of all professions and pursuits: of farmers, lawyers physicians, merchants, manufacturers, mechanics, and laborers; and this, not only among the officers but the private soldiers in the ranks. Our citizen-soldiers are unlike those of any other country in other respects. They are armed, and have been accustomed from their youth up to handle and use fire-arms; and a large proportion of them, especially in the western and more newly-settled states, are expert marksmen. They are men who have a reputation to maintain at home by their good conduct in the field. They are intelligent, and there is an individuality of character which is found in the ranks of no other army. In battle, each private man, as well as every officer, fights not only for his country, but for glory and distinction among his fellow-citizens, when he shall return to civil life."

AMBROISE CLÉMENT.

ARMY

ARMY. The word army denotes the entire body of armed men put on foot and supported by a nation for the defense of its interests or the furtherance of its ambition, greed, or other passion. The term is also applied to any portion of the entire body mustered for special service. Politically considered the army is a safeguard and should be animated with patriotism, from a military standpoint, it is a machine, and should be so constructed in all its cogs and wheels as to execute efficiently the various military manœuvres; to accomplish which it needs strength, agility, and mobility in all its parts. Whether taken in the sense of a corps manœuvering before the enemy, or in the meaning of the entire military forces of the country, the army comprises all species of arms, as well those of a particular branch, as the infantry, horses, besides combatants such as cavalry; or men, horses and material, as in the case of the artillery and of the engineer corps. It draws after it as a consequence, and as essential to its existence, the creation of great and costly establishments, and also, from a moral point of view, the isolation of a portion of the nation, whose life is subjected to an exceptional regimen.

—I. HISTORY. Who does not recall the immense armies of Sesostris and Xerxes, and does not wonder how they were composed and supported? The former question is the more easily answered.——The armies of Sesostris, the most famous of which numbered 600,000 foot soldiers and 27,000 chariots, and which overran and conquered Asia, had not the character of permanency. As soon as a war was ended, they were at once disbanded. But the recruiting of these armies was easy, warriors constituting a privileged caste in Egypt. It is said that punishment in the armies of ancient Egypt was inflicted rather on the personal honor and reputation than on the body of the delinquent, a proof of generous ideas among the people and of a wise military organization.

—As much can not be said of the Persians under Xerxes. They were at that time degenerated as compared to what they had been during the reign of Cyrus; and yet the Persians were conquered by the Greeks, owing rather to their bad equipment and to the blunders of several of their chiefs, than to any lack of courage.

—Although at the outset the king of Persia commanded 1,000,000 men, he did not give battle with very many soldiers. At Platea, he confronted his united enemies with only 350,000 men, and with still fewer on other fields of battle. This is an instance of the fate of large armies.
Edition: current; Page: [134]
Far from their native land, they melt away by thousands and thousands. The history of all times shows his.

—The use of chariots of war, of which Sesostris had so many, and which were to be found among the Persians, shows the nature of the country in which these people fought. It was essentially a flat country. From Asia westward, the use of chariots gradually diminished. They were seldom seen among the Greeks and never among the Romans.

—Greece, divided up among small tribes, never put large armies on foot. In their intestine struggles, these tribes fought with handfuls of men. In their greatest battle, that of Leuctra, they numbered but 14,500 soldiers on one side, and 26,000 on the other. In their foreign wars, the same numerical weakness is observed. Against Syracuse Athens sent 6,300 men. Agesilaus accomplished his Asiatic expedition with 8,300 men, and Alexander the Great, when in command of the whole Grecian force, led against Darius only 35,000 men. The Greeks had but little cavalry. Their infantry consisted of a solid phalanx. The phalanx consisted of hoplites or heavy-armed men, in columns sixteen deep; four columns constituted a tetrarchy, or company of sixty-four men, the essential basis of this tactical formation. The tetrarchies and higher fractions of the army were ranged side by side, almost without any space between them, rendering the phalanx a heavy, compact and unwieldy body. This serious disadvantage was made up for by the individual quality of the Grecian soldiers, for the Greek foot soldiers, heavily or lightly armed (these latter employed in skirmishing about the phalanx), were robust, valiant, and enthusiastically patriotic.

—The Roman armies acquired an importance different in more than one respect from that of the Greek armies. The Roman empire, as established by them, was both vaster and more durable than the improvised empire of Alexander.

—In Rome every citizen owed military service, and at the beginning of a war the fittest for battle were chosen, just as in Greece; only instead of being subject to draft from twenty to sixty years of age, as at Athens and Sparta, it was only from seventeen to forty-six that a person was liable to be drafted, and between these limits sixteen years were to be spent in actual service, if a foot soldier, ten years only if a mounted one. One of the principles of the military constitution of Rome, was that the cavalry of the state should be recruited solely from the patrician class, who ranked inferior only to the senators. As long as this custom prevailed, the cavalry of the Roman armies were only mediocre, and it was necessary, from the beginning of the Punic wars, to have recourse to auxiliary foreign cavalry; to that cavalry, of which the Numidians, the Iberians and the Gauls furnished the best recruits.

—The Roman legion possessed an offensive power which tallied wonderfully well with the ambition of the people from which it sprung. Instead of being ranged in one deep line, like the phalanx, it was formed into three spaced lines. On this chess-board the occupied squares were equal to the empty ones, so that in bringing the second line on a line with the first, there was obtained, when needed, what is known as a full formation, meanwhile preserving as its normal formation detached and movable lines, each ten files deep. These three lines comprised the legionaries, properly so called, which consisted of the hastati in the front line; principes in the middle, and triarii in the rear. These latter (triarii) constituted a reserve, and did not number more than 600, half the number of each of the two other lines. Besides the soldiers of the rank, there was, as in Greece, a body of light armed men who opened the battle as skirmishers. These latter were equal in numbers to the hastati, that is to say, 1,200 strong. This made 4,200 foot soldiers to the legion, the mean strength of this corps at different periods of its organization. A distinctive feature of Roman army organization is that the cavalry constituted an integral part of the legion, and varying from a tenth to a twentieth of its whole strength.

—The consuls commanded the armies. A consular army consisted of two Roman legions, supported by two allied legions, and the fact that there were two consuls tells what was the ordinary composition of a levy: four national legions and four foreign legions. Thus each consul had under his command 16,800 foot soldiers and 1,800 cavalry. Even still later, at the time of the proconsuls, a Roman army seldom exceeded 25,000 men. One of the largest Roman armies was that which fought at Cannæ, one which numbered 80,000 men, and yet was vanquished by Hannibal.

—As the consuls were elected for only one year, the command of the Roman armies was frequently changed. Notwithstanding this disadvantage, the Roman armies were eminently successful, except when confronted with genius, as they sometimes were. This fact is owing particularly to the personal valor of the Roman soldier, hardened by exercise from his youth, inured to hardship, battle and privation. The member of a legion carried, in addition to his arms, a sack containing two weeks' rations of wheat, and a stake for the purpose of strengthening the camp inclosure. Even thus burdened, he was able to make long marches.

—Let us add, that, in spite of the inflexibility of Roman policy, the legion which had so well served it underwent a transformation, a reaction from one of the revolutions which agitated the forum. Marius, the head of the popular party, admitted as soldiers of the rank, or legionaries, even the proletarians; while up to his time, the possession of a certain income was a condition precedent to the enjoyment of that privilege. The consequence of this admission was to put an end to the hierarchy which existed in the legion. The hastati, principes and triarii were thus fused into one, and armed in the same way. Then the legions were divided into ten cohorts ranged in three lines. The light cavalry while it lost some part of its mobility, continued to have two principal lines, and a third line as a reserve. No better disposition could have been made of these
Edition: current; Page: [135]
lines when ranged in order of battle. Cæsar's legion was the cohort legion, and it achieved as great results as the primitive legion.

—Even under Cæsar, and to a greater extent under the empire, the conquered provinces contributed to recruit the legions, while the ranks of the army, as well as the offices of the Roman government, were invaded by the conquered. But this is not the main cause of the deterioration in the imperial armies; this deterioration was caused rather by the effeminacy which affected all classes of society. The old weapons were found too heavy, the well-known straight sword was abandoned; the soldier no longer carried his stake and luggage. Light arms, such as the bow and arrow, were preferred; and instead of coming into close contact when fighting, the habit was formed of fighting at a distance, and with machines which increased beyond measure, rather than with soldiers. Thus the way was paved for the triumph of those rude barbarians who invaded the country.

—The cohort of this period gradually changed; it sometimes fought entirely apart, and became a mixed corps of infantry and cavalry. The last legion, that mentioned by Vegetius, with its 6,100 foot soldiers formed into two lines only, comprised all descriptions of foot; in the front rank, heavy armed; in the second, mailed archers; then two ranks of light armed foot soldiers; one rank of cross-bowmen, around a machine for throwing projectiles, and last the triarii. It soon became necessary to abandon this confused arrangement, and to return to the system of isolated cohorts. The discipline, as well as the organization of the army declined. It suffices to recall the exactions and the mutinies of the prætorian cohorts, in order to get an idea of the disorder which prevailed in the Roman armies, removing the last prop of the empire—The armies of the barbarians, if the name of army may be applied to the crowd of combatants, accompanied by their wives and children, who invaded the Roman empire, was composed almost exclusively of infantry. Once settled in the countries which they had conquered or which had been ceded to them, these barbarians adopted the military customs of the former owners of the land, that is of the Romans, as did the Visigoths; or else, like the Franks, they preserved the principles of their own barbarian organization, modified by the necessity of holding the conquered people in check. The Franks, before the enemy, retained the deep rank, as may be inferred from the account of the chronicler writing of the victory of Tours, won by Charles Martel, over the Saracens,—that his success was owing to his heavy battalions. They thus massed when on the offensive, and scattered when acting on the defensive, occupying isolated, but important positions.

—In the feudal army, the lords themselves came at the summons of the king to fight by his side. Their vassals accompanied them and took part in the battle as a second line. Beside these two lines of horsemen, the one of lords, the other of their villeius, the armies of this period comprised infantry, also, but no one was disposed to assume its command, or to have anything to do with it, since for the rich and the powerful the mounted service had many more attractions. This state of affairs was aggravated by reason of the vanity which bred, in the lords, a thorough contempt for the foot soldier, whose powerlessness and want of skill at the moment of danger, were, later, the occasion of so much regret to them. The infantry, consigned to the rear rank, consisted, in feudal times, of only poorly armed peasants, fit only to commence the battle, as skirmishers, and at its close to be employed as pillagers of the enemy's camp. While the infantry was thus dwindling, the cavalry acquired an exaggerated prominence. It constituted a disproportionately large part of the army, and it alone bore the weight of the war; it was the besieging force, attacked posts and intrenchments, to accomplish which it had to dismount. If it had been light cavalry, it would not have been so bad; but it was heavy cavalry, weighed down with iron mail, for the noble cavalry would not fight in any other way; the right of wearing armor being one of the privileges of their rank. Hence, when dismounted, even after throwing off some of their military accessories, they experienced great difficulty in going over a small piece of ground, and were obliged to divide themselves into several bodies. This cavalry of nobles soon formed a corporation of honor, the order of knighthood, to which admission could be had only by proving nobility of birth courage and good reputation. Among the cavaliers, the most powerful carried banners, and the effective strength of armies was reckoned only by banners, that is to say by groups of about 30 cavaliers, a fact which shows how little was thought of infantry. The 30 cavaliers belonging to a banner were divided into 5 parts, each part consisting of a knight and his suite.

—In this way was brought about the strange anomaly of effecting all the operations of war, even those requiring active and unimpeded motion, with men weighed down with iron armor, necessarily slow and heavy in their movements.

—The crusades, in which chivalry played so important a part, changed to some extent, this condition of affairs. Far from the mother country, the recruiting of armies became difficult, and the leaders, to insure the safety of their cause, were obliged to turn their attention to the foot soldiers who followed them, to equip them better and to direct them. From this time the foot soldier showed the importance and lasting character of his part. While the infantry was thus reviving in the cast, another circumstance was bringing it into prominence in France. The kings of France entered into covenants with the cities, granting them by degrees municipal government. Each commune levied for its own defense a corps composed nearly always of infantry, and it was not long before this communal militia, always on foot, and subject to the same leader, excelled the feudal militia. The use of gunpowder doing away with
Edition: current; Page: [136]
the use of mail armor, was a circumstance equally favorable to the development of the infantry.

—Besides this communal militia, at the disposal of the king in case of war, there were at this time bands of mercenaries, who, recruited principally from Brabant and from Germany, fought at the sole expense of the sovereign, a scourge alike to friend and foe The grandes compagnies of which Du Guesclin had the merit of ridding France, were these very adventurers, whose existence lasted until the 17th century.

—The disadvantages incident to the employment of mercenary troops, induced Charles V., and after him Charles VII, of France to attempt the creation of a national and standing army. Taxation, reduced to a permanent system, crowned this effort with success under the latter of these monarchs, the creator of the francs archers, (1448). These new foot soldiers, were recruited at the expense of the parishes, and except when mustered for the purpose of drill, each one of them remained in the parish that had equipped him and held itself responsible for him. This isolation effectually prevented the development of any military ardor among these foot soldiers, and as a consequence the francs archers had a short existence. Quite otherwise was it with those companies of cavalry, each composed of 100 lances fournies (500 men), for these companies, first organized in 1445, continued to exist down to the French revolution. These organizations of Charles VII., were copied by the other powers. Louis XI. did away with the francs archers, replacing them by 10,000 adventurers and 6,000 Swiss. These recent conquerors of Charles the Bold, who, armed with pikes, fought in large, square battalions, enjoyed a great reputation, and all the other powers endeavored to imitate their infantry. At the camp of Pont-de-l'Arche (1480) they were the instructors of the French soldiers, whom they taught to manœuvre with precision and in silence.

—Charles VIII. introduced German infantry into France, landsknechte, of whom his father had already had several companies in his service. When Charles set out on his expedition to Naples, he took with him 30,000 men and 140 cannon; of these 18,000 were infantry, nearly all Swiss or landsknechte. Louis XII. organized a few companies of light horse, afterward amalgamated with the cavalry companies of lances fournies, and, when about to march against Genoa, recruited 2,000 Greek horsemen, called stradiots. The necessity of thus enrolling foreign troops, shows that the French infantry was still backward, while, on the other hand, the French cavalry had gained and continued to enjoy the best of reputations. Louis XII., with the view of improving the French infantry, induced several distinguished chevaliers to assume the command. The most famous of these, Bayard, was not willing to place himself at the head of more than 500 men, a proof at once both of his modesty and of the necessity he recognized of giving to this service very particular attention. Francis I. endeavored to devise the means to establish in France a good and solid infantry. In 1534, he organized 7 legions of 6,400 men each, and each legion was composed of men of the same province. Had this institution lasted, the French would have had a standing army of 45,000 infantry, no inconsiderable force for those times. The system of legions having been abandoned, the French armies now only numbered a few small and detached companies of infantry, called bandes or bands. These bandes, of from 500 to 600 men each, commanded by a captain, fought generally, ranged in squares, the pikemen in the centre, the arquebusiers on the outside. Thus the soldiers equipped with fire-arms, served as light armed soldiers. It was the tendency of the times to render fire-arms, those arms which place the weak upon an equality with the strong, more easily handled and of more general use; a tendency which proved that these arms were destined to prevail in the future. In this respect, the artillery had already made great progress, evidenced by Charles VIII. being able to carry 140 pieces of cannon with him in his Neapolitan expedition, and evidenced also by the effects of the French guns at Marignan.

—Fire-arms thus became lighter, and greatly increased in number. For the culverin of the Swiss, was substituted the arquebuse; and the musket, the precursor of the gun, was on the eve of introduction. The adoption of portable fire-arms increased in the ratio of about one-fifth under Francis I., to two-thirds at the close of the wars of religion, and to four-fifths under Louis XIII. At that time armies were not large. The duke of Anjou, at Moncontour, had only 16,000 infantry, 8,000 cavalry, and 15 cannon, the largest force of that period, excepting only the army of 26,000 men with which the duke of Alba, in the name and to the advantage of Philip II. invaded and conquered Portugal. The bandes acquired importance in proportion as the infantry superseded the cavalry, and as fire-arms increased. It was not long before several of these bandes were united under one chief, for the purpose of simplifying their government, and of giving a united impulse to their action. Three or four of these bandes constituted a regiment; the commander of a regiment taking the title of colonel. The use of these two terms is found beyond dispute, under Charles IX. about 1561.

—The companies of light cavalry were not united into regiments until 74 years later. What characterizes the cavalry from the time of Francis I. is that the cavalry of noblemen diminished in number, disappeared little by little, and that men at arms, who succeeded the knights, soon found that their followers attained to the same level as themselves. From this time the formation in line was abandoned, and squadrons, of at least eight ranks deep, were formed. This reform originated with the Germans, and was copied from the armies of Charles V. by Francis I. These new squadrons, called squadrons of reîtres, from the German word reiter, meaning a knight or rider, fought in successive ranks, the rank
Edition: current; Page: [137]
which charged and fired retreating to the rear. The awkwardness of a cavalry too many deep, was soon perceived, and the number of ranks was immediately reduced from 8 to 6, and even to 5. In order to reduce their ranks, the infantry, too, abandoned the square formation. This was inevitable, as artillery would produce the greatest destruction on compact bodies.

—Under Henry IV., and Maurice of Nassau, army organization improved. The latter introduced regularity, discipline, encampments, and compulsory agricultural work on the part of the soldier. The former won his crown by his exploits, exhibited skill in tactics, and to the courage of a valiant knight added the prudence of a commander. He was one of the first to show modern nations all the advantage to be drawn from a reserve corps. In command of but an insignificant army during the civil wars, he mustered for the execution of his designs against the house of Austria (1610), which his death alone prevented, an army of 32,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry, and 33 cannon, a formidable army, augmented by his numerous allies to the number of 65,000 foot and 25,000 horse; and during this expedition he still left a reserve of 60,000 soldiers in France; for his economical administration had enabled him to endow his country with a total army of 100,000 men. At that time these numbers were regarded as extraordinary, but the size of armies has constantly increased since then. Louis XIII. had five armies on foot at one time, amounting in all to 100,000 men. Louis XIV., on a peace footing, never had less than 125,000, and during war mustered as many as 400,000 soldiers.

—These formidable armaments led to the abandonment of the pike and the adoption of the gun with sword bayonet, to the organization of special troops of artillery, to the establishment of an honest and strict command, of which the state gradually assumed a more complete direction and control, and led also to the introduction of a national system of recruiting by drafting from the militia. Although the grand roi had in his service foreign troops, yet these were always the exception. As much can not be averred of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden. This monarch reigning over a nation of 3,000,000 souls, and of warlike instincts too, was obliged to enroll in his armies a large number of foreigners. From every country he took into his armies fugitive prisoners. He directed officers to levy regiments, according them at the same time the command of those regiments in advance. His armies were noted for sobriety, obedience and discipline, to such an extent, that the German peasants did not seek to molest any isolated Swedish soldiers. His armies at no time exceeded 70,000 men, assisted by only 30,000 allies. Gustavus Adolphus was one of the first to make use of artillery for purposes of offensive warfare, to divide his infantry into small bodies in a manner at once more rational and more convenient for firing, to require his cavalry to fight when trotting, and only to fire when at close quarters. Frederick II., of Prussia, continued and completed these progressive measures. The infantry performed its manœuvres and fired with a precision that has not since been surpassed; the cavalry charged galloping and with side arms; mounted artillery was introduced, and these three arms of the service manœuvred as one body, forming a new combination on which are based the military tactics of to-day. The Prussian army, with 70,000 men at first, soon developed into an army of 120,000 and even of 200,000 soldiers, a prodigious number for a country of 6,000,000 people. It contained a large number of foreigners whom the severity of the discipline retained willingly or by compulsion in its service. Desertion, nevertheless, kept undermining it, and it is astonishing that Prussia, even while entertaining the desire of remaining faithful to the traditions of the great Frederick, should have preserved even up to the time of the disasters of 1806, the mixture of national and foreign soldiers.

—With the commencement of the French revolution the aspect of French armies changed. The fusion of the national guard with the army, the levies en masse of 1793—the draft extending indiscriminately to all citizens between the ages of 20 and 25 years—supplied France with a million of soldiers, divided up into fourteen armies. These improvised soldiers lacked instruction and could not manœuvre as the recruits of Frederick. In the first battles, at Jemmapes and at Valmy, they were deployed in great bands as skirmishers, and their daring, making amends for their want of experience, enabled them to gain a victory. In forced marches they did not encamp, but bivouacked; then they marched upon the enemy, and attacked it wherever they found it, without having recourse to temporary works of fortification. The other powers were compelled to follow the example of France and to muster large armies likewise. In regulating and consolidating the military organizations of the revolution, Napoleon I. established those immense armaments on a permanent basis. The armies became so large that it was found indispensable to divide them up into army corps, many of which numbered as many men as the entire armies of Turenne. The grande armie which accomplished the brilliant campaign of Austerlitz, comprised seven army corps: its total effective strength amounted to 186,000 men, of whom 38,000 were cavalry; and 340 pieces of artillery accompanied it. Napoleon set out in 1812 with 625,000 men, of whom more than 16,000 were officers. In 1814, the allied powers placed in the field against France an army of 900,000 men. From that time until 1870, Europe never saw such prodigious armies. The system of large standing armies having prevailed, the greater part of the nations of Europe were unwillingly compelled to maintain more soldiers than they otherwise would have done; a condition of affairs which still cripples many of those nations, and may even eventually drag them into bankruptcy. These costly armies have, however, often rendered as
Edition: current; Page: [138]
effective service in the maintenance of civil order, as when engaged in foreign wars.

—II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIZATION. The army of a nation should be so organized at home as easily to prepare for any war that may occur. Its numerical strength also should be proportioned to the population of the country. The proportion that prevailed formerly, on the principle of si vis pacem, para bellum, was, one soldier to every one hundred inhabitants. This was, in fact, about the proportion, on a peace footing, in the armies of France, of the Germanic confederation, and of some other nations, a mean between that of England, with a very small army, and that of other powers in the north, with their larger armies. Preparation for possible wars requires that a fraction of the army be available for mustering either in camps for instruction or in places of rendezvous, other than their usual garrisons. This fraction should amount to at least one-tenth of the entire effective force. To satisfy these two conditions would not be enough. An army organized at home, in the manner just described, becomes too feeble from the moment that war breaks out; for if there are one or two-tenths under instruction and preparing for war who can immediately enter the field, the remaining eight-tenths are indispensable, or almost so, for the maintenance of order. Hence the necessity of being able rapidly to increase the effective strength of the army: this is what is called passing from a peace footing to a war footing. This transition should be managed skillfully in order that it may be effected without violence, and this condition is all the more important since it is necessary to at least double the effective force. This object is attained by the maintenance of what the French call cadres, a permanent and legal organization of superior and inferior officers, corporals, and privates, among whom it is sufficient to place young soldiers, in order that these latter may readily acquire the military spirit and skill. This possibility of rapid increase facilitates the putting on foot of entire armies and leading them into the country of the enemy.

—All armies are divided into combatants and non-combatants. And first of the combatants.

—All combatants can not be united into a single group. They are too numerous, and too different in nature to permit this. By reason of their stature, or on account of aptitude or choice, some will fight on foot, others on horseback, and still others with the machines of war. Thus the first division of an army is the following: infantry, cavalry, and artillery. To provide quarters for these three, and to enable them to overcome the difficulties in their way, a fourth class, an engineer corps, is necessary. This fourth arm serves on foot and manœuvres like the infantry, but it is divided up into small fractions. Napoleon I., as it is stated in his memoirs, required the following proportions between the several arms: the infantry being represented by 1, the cavalry to be 1-5, the artillery 1-8, the engineer corps 1-40, and the train 1-30. Except as regards the cavalry, the diminishing importance of which seems to have been presaged by certain wars, these proportions are still retained. How should an army be constructed? It should be divided into manœuvring units and tactic units, that is, into divisions and battalions or squadrons. It is by divisions that manœuvring is performed in camps. It is by battalions and squadrons that drilling and fighting in detail are done. The battalion or squadron, commanded directly by an officer without bearers of orders, should not, when drawn up in line of battle, extend beyond the range of the human voice, for it is indispensable that the officer in command, stationed at one wing, may be heard at the other wing. There should be also administrative units: the regiment, comprising several battalions or squadrons, and the company, which is a fraction of the battalion. The company should be such that its head, the captain, may be able to follow carefully the character, the instruction, and the service of every man in it, that is to say, it should have from 100 to 150 men. These administrative units are intended to centralize expenses, and to facilitate both purchases and the auditing of accounts. The existence of these units, and the graded division which results therefrom, would not be sufficient, unless among the heads of these units and below them, there was a properly organized hierarchy.

—The division is divided into brigades, which comprise two or three regiments; below the general of division, there are, therefore, brigade generals, and colonels of regiments. A regiment may include from three to five battalions or squadrons; a colonel has, therefore, under him the several officers of the battalions or squadrons. The battalion which should not exceed 800 men, 1,000 at most, comprises from six to eight companies, and the chief of a battalion commands from six to eight captains. The captain requires assistance, for he must lead in battle and administer his company: he has a lieutenant and a second lieutenant, two under paymasters, and four sergeants, each having the command of one of the four sections of the company; two corporals, assist each sergeant of a section. From corporal to general of division, there are ten grades; and one of the fundamental principles of army organization is that these grades be within the reach of all, that a volunteer private may rise to the rank of general. Notwithstanding this principle, such success will always remain very rare; and, in any case, the man who finally reaches the topmost round of the ladder especially in times of peace, will be pretty well advanced in years. It is important that the army should have colonels and generals in the vigor of life, under fifty years of age.

—The army should be distributed over a country in proportion to the resources of the different portions of that country. But are the troops to remain stationary at a point, or should they be moved from time to time, to be succeeded in their former quarters by other troops? To continue them in one place is to weld them into one body,
Edition: current; Page: [139]
and to familiarize them with their chiefs who are well fitted to lead them to war. To move them about, is to isolate them more from the other troops and from the same officers, and to prevent them from acquiring fixed habits. They are thus maintained better in that condition of semi-unconcern favorable to the development of soldierly qualities.

—NON-COMBATANTS. These are as indispensable to an army as are supporting forces to the artillery, or as servants to a numerous family. Those who place their lives in jeopardy for their country, should do so cheerfully, certain of accomplishing a duty, of performing an honored act, and of obtaining, in case of death, proper burial for themselves, and assistance for their families; should be certain of medical care, if they return wounded or sick, and of rest and food, if they return to the camp with nothing more than fatigue. To permit these non-combatants, surgeons, nurses, bakers, to remain without organization, would be a grievous error. They should therefore be organized in a military way. They will thus be subjected to the same discipline as combatants. Under a military organization they are susceptible of a greater degree of mobility, and in spite of the inconveniences occasioned by the presence of wagons, they are better able to follow the troops and participate in the events of war, each within his sphere. The accessories comprise not only the belongings of each arm, such as the train of artillery, and of engineers, military wagons, pontoon bridges, ambulances, etc., but also what may be called the personal and speaking material of the army, e.g. interpreters, printing presses, lithographic, photographic and telegraphic apparatus. In a word, all the wants which advanced civilization has called into existence or can satisfy, should be felt and satisfied in the army, that miniature of the nation, whenever those wants become military wants—III. USUAL MODES OF RECRUITING. By recruiting is understood the aggregate of the means, or the system by which young men are led to leave their homes to serve their country in the field.

—Recruiting is to an army what food is to the human body: if the food is not healthy, the body decays; if the system of recruiting is bad, the efficiency of the army is impaired.

—Enrollment in the ranks of the army, in the case of natives, may be either voluntary or compulsory. Voluntary enlistment is the result of love of country, or made in consideration of the advantages, immediate or remote, which the military service offers. Voluntary enlistment may be made with or without bounty.

—Voluntary enlistment with bounty attached thereto, prevailed during the thirty years' war during the reigns of Louis XIV., Louis XV, and Louis XVI, that is to say, from the time of Gustavus Adolphus to the French revolution, and was, indeed, about the only means used for obtaining recruits. Applied in a great country where the condition of the people is generally prosperous, this system of recruiting degenerates into one of force or fraud, and brings into the service only the dregs of the population. Carried on without good faith, it alienates the enlisted, who never become free again, notwithstanding their contract, and produces desertion.

—Voluntary enlistment without bounty is scarcely seen except in free countries. It reveals generally a decided vocation for military life, although trouble or spite, or even the mere desire of wearing a brilliant uniform, is sometimes powerful enough to induce a young man to enlist.

—At all events, voluntary enlistment has always been an inadequate means of recruiting large armies. Louis XIV, by this mode of recruiting, did not obtain annually more than 20,000 men, and were it not for his garrison regiments, his attempts at a militia, and his foreign regiments, it would have been impossible for him to have completed his army. The famous voluntary enlistments in Paris in 1792, about which so much has been said, produced a total of 5,000 soldiers. The restoration which, forced to promise the abolition of conscription, had, at least provisionally, to resort to voluntary enlistment as the principal source of recruiting its armies, was obliged to give up the attempt. In fact from 1815 to 1848 this mode of recruiting never supplied France with more than 10,000 soldiers in ordinary years, and with not more than 28,000 in those years when war was imminent, as in 1831—And yet writers, statesmen, even those of our own day, have extolled the exclusive employment of volunteers in the formation of standing armies. In our opinion this is a utopian idea. The army of a large country can never be fed in this way, unless its numbers greatly decrease. To be thus fed, there would have to be more of the military spirit prevalent in the country than ever existed, and more of the patriotic instinct than our modern industrial society seems capable of possessing.

—As to compulsory recruiting, it is easy to conceive how its forms may vary. Let us examine the forms which have most frequently obtained.

—There is, in the first place, recruiting from a particular caste. In countries where there was a military caste, the requisite number of soldiers was supplied from this source. This was effected by compulsory enlistment from the body of that caste; and when the country was threatened, all the males of the caste, of an age and in a condition to bear arms, were obliged to take the field. Ancient Egypt offers an illustration of this state of affairs. In that country the military caste hierarchically followed the priestly caste, possessed a third of the territorial wealth, and, besides, received pay during the continuance of the war. India, also, had its military caste. The Roman knights too, at least during the first years of the republic, constituted a sort of military caste, and in the middle ages the obligation of service in war was imposed in exchange for a fief, an obligation which became at once hereditary and brought about a like state of things. To-day, especially since the modification of the military boundaries of Austria, scarcely any vestiges
Edition: current; Page: [140]
of this mode of recruiting are to be found in the countries of Europe.

—In the second place, we must mention recruiting by arbitrary selection, as, for example, from among the young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five. In this case parents see their children at the mercy of the magistrate, who represents the state; and if this magistrate is a man lacking in honesty, or of a whimsical disposition, he will be the instrument of great abuse and acts of injustice. It would be impossible in these days to revive this made of recruiting, so essentially opposed to the principles of civil equality. It existed among the Romans, the tribunes choosing for their legions the citizens who appeared the most robust, but then the enlistment was only for a time, and the legion was disbanded at the close of the war which had called it into service. It existed in Prussia, where, under Frederick the Great, military service was for life, each regiment having a district assigned to it from which, under the arbitrary control of a superior officer detailed for the express purpose, and with instructions to select the strongest and the largest men, it was recruited. The system existed for a short time in France, under Napoleon I., in 1813, for the formation of regiments to serve as guards of honor, of which each horseman of good family was appointed by the prefect of his department, by virtue of his office. In Russia the system survived till about 1870.

—Recruiting by arbitrary selection, instead of being applied to individuals, as we have just represented it, may take place in a collective manner; as, for instance, when a battalion or a regiment of militia, or of national guards, after having served at home, as it usually does, is afterward sent abroad, either in whole or in part, to swell the ranks of an army in the field.

—In exceptional cases, recourse may be had to what is called the levy en masse. If an entire nation is summoned to arms, every one capable of handling a pike or a gun should come forward. Only when a nation's independence is at stake, should this method be resorted to, since it exhausts the population of the country. And even in cases of most imminent danger, government should defer as long as possible resort to such an extreme measure. France had recourse to this mode once, in 1793, and the convention did not hesitate to decree the permanent levy (so long as the enemy should continue to desecrate its soil) of all Frenchmen unmarried, or widowers without children, no matter what their age. We may imagine the disturbance of all the relations of life of the French people, produced by this much too radical measure, especially after the requisition of 300,000 men, from 18 to 40 years of age, which took place in the month of February of the same year. Germany, in 1813, and France again in 1870, had recourse to the levy en masse.

—Another mode that requires mentioning, is the system of general, gradual recruiting. We understand by this a system of recruiting which makes every citizen, as long as adult and able-bodied, subject to military duty; but in different categories which remove him farther and farther from a chance of being obliged to take the field as he advances in years. The advantage of this system is, that it requires every one, without distinction of birth or fortune, to undergo military service equally and to fulfill his duties to his country. The disadvantage of the system is that it retains a citizen for too long a time, if not as a member of the regular army, at least of the landwehr, and in this way, to a certain extent, interferes with individual liberty and the spirit of industry which it produces.

—Partial recruiting by lot has been, up to the present, the most general mode of recruiting. This mode is least detrimental in its effects on the population of the country, since it takes from it only a limited number of young men, and leaves at liberty those on whom the lot has not fallen. These are two real advantages. Drafting by lot, besides, if well conducted, establishes a rule of justice, very conducive to the maintenance of harmony among families, especially in the country, where the people are averse to give their children to the state as to give it their money.

—Recruiting by military pupils supplies but a small contingent to the armies in the countries in which it is in use. Pupils maintained at government expense, may be educated with a view to a military career, and willingly or by compulsion made to enter the service, as is the case in Russia, where sons of soldiers are brought up as soldiers by the state. The famous corps of janissaries, organized in Turkey toward the close of the fifteenth century, and which lasted until 1826, was constantly recruited in this way. The children brought up to become janissaries were not even of Turkish origin; they were young Christian captives instructed in the Mussulman faith, and thus naturalized. The sultan, who established this corps, thought that their origin would make the members of this body most devoted to the sovereign, but all he obtained was men devoted to themselves, capricious, exacting, making and unmaking emperors, and by their dissensions bringing Turkey to the verge of ruin.

—From 1781 to 1789 national schools, intended to bring up children from the provinces, in such a way as to give them a taste for the military career, were established in France; but when the pupils left them they were allowed some time before entering the army. To utilize the pupils of these national schools during the time of their education, they were employed in the maintenance of the public highways.

—Thus far, whether treating of volunteer or compulsory recruiting, we have considered only the employment of native soldiers. It is in like manner possible to levy and to muster foreign soldiers. Two systems of recruiting foreign soldiers may be considered under this head. First, by purchase. Buying slaves and making soldiers of them is a simple enough means of recruiting. This mode of recruiting could be employed only in exceptional circumstances, or in countries still in a barbarous state.
Edition: current; Page: [141]
After the battle of Cannæ, Rome bought and equipped 8,000 slaves. The famous mamelukes of Egypt were originally slaves bought of the Mongols by certain Egyptian sultans. To-day the black guard of the emperor of Morocco is recruited, partially, at least, in this manner, for the sovereign claims, for this purpose and, as entry duty, several of the negroes whom each caravan brings from the Soudan. Troops thus recruited may be devoted to their sovereign, but it requires fact to prevent them from acting like the janissaries. The second may be called the hiring system. Instead of buying a man, his services are hired for a fixed time. This is the old system of employing mercenaries, so much in vogue at the beginning of the modern era, during the thirty years' war, and the seven years' war, and which lasted until the commencement of the nineteenth century. It is a system which, happily, has become obsolete. If, instead of hiring the services of men individually, they are engaged as a body collectively, it is then said to be recruiting by capitulation, a species of contract for troops. The contracts of capitulation of the Swiss with France are well known. The consideration of the contract of capitulation for troops, consisted of a bounty, fixed wages, and certain privileges and guarantees. At present, contracts of capitulation for troops are prohibited by Swiss law.

—IV. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. The army should set an example of honor and devotion to the country. It is by maintaining a sentiment of honor, pure and unsullied in the service, that the army furnishes the best proof of its patriotism; for through the army this sentiment will be kept up among the people, and will contribute to the greatness of the nation. Devotion to one's country is not practically so powerful an incentive as a sense of honor; it is frequently apparently absent, and yet it should be ever present, in peace as in war, in defeat as in success, in adversity as well as in prosperity. The devotion which springs from duty and is a source of self-denial, often exposes the soldier to severe trials, and it is no doubt with the view of mitigating the severity of these trials, of disguising them as it were, that the higher officers of the army, as a general rule, manifest so much kindness and indulgent friendship toward young officers. In order to uphold the sentiment of honor and of self-devotion, to obtain a military spirit useful in every great nation and in keeping with its political, literary, commercial and industrial spirit, it is essential that military service should be required of all, and that all should be placed on an equal footing in rendering military service, as they are placed on an equal footing in the matter of taxation.

—As civilization advances, military laws become less severe. The proof of this is found in the code of military law promulgated in France in 1857, and in the German military code of 1872; but indulgence should not be carried any further. These codes no longer permit the punishment of a deserter with the ball and chain, or irons. They allow extenuating circumstances to be pleaded in behalf of soldiers under accusation. If repressive measures in the case of the soldier have become less severe, the treatment of the enemy has become less rude. Thus, during the Prussian war, the French returned wounded prisoners, and about 1870 an agreement between several of the powers neutralized their hospitals and ambulances in time of war. War, while keeping pace with the humanitarian progress of civilization, and allowing the army to exist under better conditions, should be carried on with rapidity and decision; and from the moment the voice of the country has declared war, it should break forth vigorously, and submit the enemy to the will which he, in the first instance, refused to submit to. It is by shortening war that its horrors are mitigated.

—Army policy should be looked at from two standpoints, that of the government toward the army, and that of the army toward the government and the country—From the former standpoint it has been often said that the army constituting almost exclusively an instrument of governmental authority, absolute government had greater need of relying upon it, and for this reason caressed it and overwhelmed it with favors. This opinion seems exaggerated, since republics too have granted favors to the army. What may be reasonably asserted is that a wise government should treat the army well, as constituting an essential and vital part of the nation, and as an indispensable agent for the maintenance of public order. Government ought, in an especial manner, to be moved to kind and just treatment of it, as some equivalent for blood spilt, fatigues undergone, and that exceptional system of discipline to which the army is at all times necessarily subjected.

—The exceptional system of army discipline consists in this, that the individuals who compose the army do not enjoy, so long as they belong to it, the plenitude of rights conferred by the fundamental law of their country on its citizens. These rights include, besides equality in civil matters and in the matter of taxation, the full liberty of every man so far as his person, his time, his opinions and the right to give expression to them are concerned.

—In the army in which the orders of a superior must be obeyed and executed instantly and in the best way possible, complete equality, and especially personal freedom of action can not possibly exist; were it otherwise, instead of striking and striking like one man, because governed by a single will, that of the general-in-chief, the army would scatter its strength and operate in a disjointed manner. It suffices to point out these disadvantages in order to show that the exercise of the right of individuality would, from a military point of view, be detrimental to the continued existence of that social machine called an army. Hence, the exceptional army discipline, the preservation of which discipline interests society in the aggregate, and the necessity of which has been in all
Edition: current; Page: [142]
ages universally recognized. As a consequence of this discipline, the army does not generally possess political rights; it can neither petition, hold deliberative meetings, nor meet without order; it has its own peculiar laws, more expeditious and severe than those of the common law courts, to take cognizance of crimes and misdemeanors. Individuals composing the army are cut off from all family pleasures, or at least can not marry without permission. On the other hand, the government provides for the health of the soldier by allowing him the conveniences compatible with his condition in life, by paying him wages in proportion to his wants, allowing him a chance for advancement; by guaranteeing to the officer the continued possession of the grade he has reached; by assuring to all soldiers a retreat for their old age, which, without luxury, at least guarantees them from want; and lastly, by honoring the service of its members, and by a jealous care that the death of the soldier on the field of battle shall be for his family a glorious souvenir, and not an occasion of spoliation.

—The army can neither meet for deliberative purposes, nor meet without an order. Submission, obedience, self-denial, result from that moral obligation inherent in its essence. Hence the army has no political part to play. But does one abdicate his citizenship when under arms? He does not; his rights of citizenship are only suspended. Hence the limits are rather difficult to fix, especially in times of revolution. The army should have an interest in the affairs of the country, but no part in the direction of them unless consulted. Far from anticipating or embarrassing the general opinion of the country, the army should ever show deference toward, and confidence in, public sentiment, when manifested legally and calmly. It should consider itself the right arm of the country, and assume as its special missions those in which there are dangers to be incurred or relief to be brought. (For U. S. army, see UNITED STATES.)

DE LA BARRE DUPARCQ.

ARTHUR

ARTHUR, Chester A., president of the United States 1881-5, was born in Franklin county, Vt., Oct. 5, 1830, was graduated at Union in 1849, was admitted to the bar in 1851 in New York city, was quartermaster general of the state of New York during the rebellion, and was collector of the port of New York 1871-8, when he was removed by president Hayes. In 1880 he was nominated for the vice-presidency by the republican party and was elected. Sept. 20, 1881, he became president after the death of president Garfield. (See GARFIELD, JAMES A).

A. J.

ARTISANS

ARTISANS. An artisan is a tradesman who works at one of the mechanical arts, as a carpenter, a locksmith, or a shoemaker. The artisan is sometimes confounded with the workingman, because both labor with their hands. They differ however in this, that the artisan works on his own account and solely at his own risk, while the workingman works for another for a fixed amount of wages. In this respect the artisan more resembles the capitalist: he is a small capitalist.

—In ordinary thought and language, we may make of artisans a separate class, midway, in a certain sense, between the laboring class and the capitalist-employers. But from a politico-economical point of view, this distinction is of little use, the more so because it is so difficult to establish the line of demarcation. In their quality of capitalists, artisans are subject, just as the manufacturer or the capitalist in general, to the laws which regulate the profits of capital. We should remark, however, that their profit generally is, or appears to be, larger in proportion to their capital, because they add to it the product of their personal labor, without clearly distinguishing these two sources of revenue. They combine, so to speak, the profit of the employer and the wages of the workman.

CHARLES COQUELIN.

ARYAN RACES.

ARYAN RACES. Among the nations which have possessed the earth, the Aryan races occupy the first rank. They were, in earlier times, comprehended under the name of the Indo-Germanic; sometimes under that of the Iranian races, while, still earlier, they were called the Japhetic. The name Indo Germanic, however, is inappropriate, partly because it designates a particular country because it designates in part a particular nation; because it has been adopted partly from geographical, partly from ethnographical considerations, and hence, denotes, in either case, not all that is to be comprehended under it, but only a part. Again, the name Iranian has only a narrow geographical meaning. Aryan, however, is the name by which, in ancient times, these races called themselves. It serves, at the same time, to designate their character. We find it among the old Hindoos whose three highest castes were called arya. Only the lowest, darkest caste, the Sudras, did not belong to the Aryan tribe. The highest castes were venerable in comparison to the latter; and this is the meaning of the word in Sanskrit. The highest caste of the Brahmins were Aryans of the highest type, (ârja, not simply? rja as the Vaisyas were called). The ancient Medes were, in like manner, called Aryans, and we have it on the authority of Herodotus, that the Persians were called Artaians, a word derived from the former. The noblest among the Hellenes were known as having preserved the traces of their Aryan origin, Tacitus mentions a tribe as belonging to the Germanic people, who retained the same name—the Arii; and in like manner too in that of the Arimanni, whose meaning is said to be "free men," we again find traces of the same word. Venerable, in the east, and free in Europe: such are the Aryans. Wherever we meet, in the Aryan language, the root of this word, it signifies the noble and the free.

—The philological researches of the present century have demonstrated the close affinity and close relationship alike of the
Edition: current; Page: [143]
Sanskrit, Zend, Parsee, of the Greek, Latin, the Germanic, and Lithuanic languages. They have thus again disclosed the affinity, long forgotten, of nations which have spoken, and still speak, these languages. The Scandinavians of the north and the Hindoos along the Ganges, who through thousands of years, have lived a great distance from one another, are now recognized as brethren and cousins. Language furnishes, at the same time, incontrovertible proof of the superior intelligence of these peoples. The Aryan languages are the most flexible in form and the richest in thought of all languages spoken by man. Their literatures are superior, in science and art, to those of all other races.

—We find, in the history of the world, but one family of nations, which, to a certain extent, can stand comparison with the Aryan race, the Semitic. All the rest are far inferior to it. The Aryan and Semitic languages are separated by a broad distinction. The difference between Aryans and Shemites is certainly much greater than the difference noticeable among the Aryans themselves. Yet, there is a tradition, among these two peoples, of their common origin. They belong, in a certain sense, together, like two stems having a common root, like two families, which, though separated, trace their origin to a common ancestor. They both consider themselves not the sons of the earth, but the offspring of the heavens, the sun, and the light (the sons of God). They are thus distinguished from the inferior races who, according to their own, though obscure and false ideas, have sprung from the earth, or from the animal kingdom. It is not impossible that the beginnings of the belief in both the affinity and the differences found among these races are traceable in the account given of the origin of man in the cosmology of Moses. If the idea of the origin of the superior race (the sons of God) seems to be personified in Adam, it is not improbable that in his two sons, Cain and Abel, we may find the first typical illustration of the origin of the two races which, in after times, separated in hostility. Cain is described as the first born, the man, the lord, the tiller of the soil, as the proud, daring warrior; while Abel, as the second born, is characterized as a pious, mild, and devout herdsman. It is impossible to make the distinction between the primitive, pure-minded disposition of the Aryans and of the Shemites clearer in a few words. In like manner, the other races such as the Hellenes and Germans have represented the ancestors of their different tribes as the sons of their common progenitor. If this idea be true, the fratricide which Cain committed in killing Abel is placed in a new light. It is very likely that the Shemites justly reproached the more violent Aryans who were their superiors, with being the first people who were the cause of warfare among the sons of God, a warfare the result of religious dissension. For this reason the Shemites called down upon the Aryans the curse of war, i.e. fratricide—which was to follow them on their onward march through ages. But, however this may be, we do not propose to force this idea upon any one; and besides it might, though unjustly, he used to disparage the character of the Aryan races. It is a fact that, from a very early day, the fortunes of the Aryans and the Shemites, as well as their ideas and languages, took a different turn. They both are conscious of being the creatures of God. But the Aryans are characterized by greater self-assertion, and by their placing greater reliance in the resources of the human mind. The Shemites show greater trust in, as well as a more absolute dependence on, God. This distinction is clearly manifest in the history of the world. All higher scientific achievements are the work of Aryan minds. The Aryans are religious by nature, but their creative power is shown in philosophy, rather than in religion. On the other hand, the most important religious revelations have come through Semitic races. Moses, Mahomet, and the mother of Christ were Shemites. It was from them that the ruling nations of the earth received their religion; but these nations themselves belong to the Aryan stock, and are the authors of science and of the legal and practical institutions of the world. The older religious systems of the Aryan races are all the results of profound meditation on the nature of God and the world; while the religion of the Hebrews, and in a still greater degree the creed of Islam, are manifestations of the religious sentiment. Christianity even, as the religion of love, did not take rise as a dogmatic system. Brahmanism, Buddhism and the creed of Zoroaster, on the other hand, are philosophical theories. On the religious belief of the Greeks and Romans, and of the Germanic nations, speculative views of nature and the mind, and the imaginative faculties at work among the sages and prophets of these peoples, exerted a very great and controlling influence. And even, when the Hellenic people and the Romans had embraced Christianity as it came from Palestine, that philosophical tendency of the Aryan mind again became manifest in this, that it transformed the religion of love into dogmatic tenets, and developed it into a system of thought. The strong sense of individuality which distinguishes the Aryans sometimes turns into defiance and haughtiness; and it is a very remarkable fact and one which re-appears among the Hindoos, the Hellenes and the Germanic nations, that their great heroes even dared to battle with the gods. The victory over one of the gods, that is, over a personal manifestation, in time, of the divine principle which was no longer suited to the age, was, among the Hindoos, considered the highest proof of true heroism which man could give, and as establishing his claim to kingship. Homer has, in a series of pictures, represented the struggles between the heroes of his people and the gods. The Germanic heroes among the warriors of their race, who are killed in battle, enter Valhalla, and there prepare themselves for the world's battle (the last of all)
Edition: current; Page: [144]
when they, together with the shining gods of heaven, are engaged in fierce contest with the dark spirits of nature. What Gobineau so justly remarks, while pointing out this distinguishing feature in the character of the Aryan race: that the inferior races should look up to the Aryan heroes, as though they were the gods themselves, and willingly submit to them, is a fact which is not surprising, when we observe that the latter, in their character as warriors, considered themselves the equals of the gods. Yet, more important than these characteristics of a daring and heroic leader in war, is another intellectual peculiarity of the Aryan race. It is, above all, a peculiarity of this race, that their intellectual heroes dare to struggle with the gods, and to push forward in this contest, to the ultimate cause of things. These people have, from the beginning, dared to search, with a greater freedom, for the ideals of human thought, the relation of man to nature and the divine. They were, from the beginning, happy as they gloried in the thought of struggling with the highest problems which present themselves to the human mind for solution. The blind submission to traditional authority on questions of science is, as is shown by the history of the world, an entirely un-Aryan characteristic. I do not mean the childish and blind hatred of all authority, though rightful; a sentiment which resists the authority of parents, the wise, of those in office, of the government, history and divine revelation. From this irrational dread of all authority, the truly Aryan is entirely free. People of a different stock, when, having suffered too long from an oppressive authority, they are suddenly relieved from it, are more liable to fall an easy victim to this erroneous sentiment. Liberated slaves, not men born and reared in a state of freedom, are hurled into this moral abyss. Whoever has learned to cope with the formidable difficulties peculiar to every sort of scientific research which is bent on going to the very depth of a problem; whoever is an adept in pure thought and knows how to conform to its irrefragable logic, is not easily led into such extremes. Indeed, the authority whose supremacy we all have to acknowledge whenever a conflict arises, is, to the man of scientific training, in all things peculiar to his calling, the power of logic; and in his search after knowledge he does not allow even the faith to hamper him, to which, in feeling, he may be devotedly attached. And this free spirit of inquiry is certainly a characteristic peculiar to the Aryan race. It is an established fact in the history of the world, that it was above all the Aryan races who labored for the advancement of science. With their scientific achievements, those of other races bear no comparison, not even those of their primitive kinsmen, the Semitic people who resemble them more closely. It is a very remarkable fact that the ancient Hindoos (forming part of the Aryan race) had classified mankind according to scientific principles. The attempt of the Chinese to imitate this classification, shows, by the manner in which they substituted mere erudition for methodical science, the marked contrast between the two-races. According to the ideas of the Hindoos, the Brahmins form the highest class (the promoters of science and religion alike), the religious philosophers. According to the Hindoo law, only the Aryans are permitted to read the sacred books (the Vedas) because they are the only ones who were supposed to enjoy the dignity of free men, while the darker Sudras, who were supposed not to understand these books, are denied that privilege. When we consider the intellectual heroism, and the incessant search after truth which distinguish the Aryan races, and among them the Germans in particular; and when we further consider that it was, in the first instance, not the Aryan race, superior in intellectual endowments and individuality (but the Semitic, so much inferior in all respects) to whom God revealed himself, the question arises: What is the cause? What does it mean? Short-sighted and timid people have often since contented themselves with the answer, that God was better pleased with the constitution of the Semitic than of the Aryan mind. How often have these people condemned the efforts of bold scientific thinkers as arrogant and futile, and attempted to fasten the shackles, which the authority of the Church provided for it, more firmly upon the spirit of inquiry, throughout the world! This intellectual malady was not without its evil influence on the state. How many an effort to oppress the intellect of nations and how many an instance in which men of liberal mind were persecuted, were, in the light of this sentiment, held to be entirely rational and justifiable! By these means, the development of mankind was, for a long time, retarded in a great many countries; the best tendencies toward human progress were weakened; and the course of science was, on account of the spirit of opposition and contradiction, by which human nature is controlled, forced into dangerous by-ways and marked by the spirit of destruction and negation. And yet, how little satisfaction do we find in the curious answer above referred to! If it were true that God loved the Aryans less than the Shemites, why is it then that he has endowed them with superior intelligence, with reasoning powers more acute? That this is a fact, the language and literature of the Aryan races demonstrate most conclusively. And if He should place the Semitic above the first born Aryan races, because the former looked upon Him as their Lord and Master with greater trust, how comes it that He has given the supreme power on earth to the Aryan rather than to the Semitic races? One of the greatest and most liberal thinkers among the Germans (Lessing) has tried to give in his essay, "The Education of Mankind," an answer to this question, which is more luminous and significant, and which we are tempted to repeat here, though slightly changed in form. A father has two sons.
Edition: current; Page: [145]
The first born is the superior both in intellect and daring. He is more violent and self-reliant than his younger brother who is milder and more attached to his father and his family. The former no sooner becomes aware of his powers than he rushes out into the world, while the latter stays at home. Now can it be said to be unkind in the father, if he is interested and directly engages in the education of the younger son first, while he is confident that the older one will make his way through life, and be less likely to find his way back to his father; and for this reason, contents himself with having the mind of the latter educated partly by the traditions of his home, partly by the experience and fortunes of life. He knows him and his ability thoroughly, and the powers of nature and the world, which are likely to put a check to too much daring, and guard against the extravagance and the extremes of the actions of men. Is it, then, absolutely inconceivable that, in the history of the world, we should find similar cases? that God should, in the first place, manifest himself, by divine revelation, to the Semitic races, the Jews and Arabians in particular, suiting these revelations to their character and degree of development, and should thus enable them materially to influence the intellectual and moral growth of the other races, while He should impose upon the Aryan races the task of building up the methodical knowledge of science, and be confident of their ability to work out this higher problem, in the ripeness of their powers? Yet, should this be one of the grand designs of God as manifested in the history of the world (which so clear a thinker as Lessing believed it to be, and which the events of history so far seem to prove it to be) how foolish and atrocious are the attempts, both of clerical and political parties, to check this search and struggle for the attainment of ultimate truth, on the part of the noblest and wisest of human intellects!

—The affinity of the several Aryan races is shown, not only by their speech but by their ideas of law and government as well. The science of jurisprudence is indeed still far behind philological science, in the knowledge of this connection. It was the science of philology that led the way in the discovery of this truth, and encouraged jurisprudence to follow in its wake. The difference in the laws of the Aryan races, great as it may seem to us, is no greater than that of their speech. But, as one common primitive language has been successfully traced in all the great variety of our modern languages, it is possible, in like manner, to discover, in the variety of laws of the Aryan races, the original unity which embraced the primitive ideas of these races on jurisprudence and the policy of the state. This original unity seems to have been stamped upon these races by the Creator; while the great diversity in the development of the primitive ideas common to all, and the difference in their general development, are the work of human history.

—The whole Aryan race has at all times shown a strong sense of the honor and dignity of human nature, and this is the source of the after-development of their various laws. The sense of honor attaching to the human person was the primary idea (which is also shared by the Semitic races), the principle of liberty peculiar to the Aryans only, is the development of that idea as worked out by the latter; and it became an object of human thought and aspiration, for the first time, in Europe. In the east "Aryas" still means the venerable, and among the Germans the "Arimans" are the free men.

—In war the standard of honor is raised, and it is this superior sense of honor which characterizes the noble knighthood whom we find among all the Aryan nations. The knights of the Hindoos are not inferior, in their high sense of honor, to the Germanic and Romanic knights of the middle ages In the laws of Manu, viii. 89, it is said: "The princes who, anxious for the victories of war, do battle against one another with the greatest fortitude, without turning backward, go straight to heaven. 90: A warrior is never allowed, in battle, to use treacherous weapons on his enemy; no arrows with barbs, nor such as are poisonous. 91: He shall not beat an enemy who is on foot, while he is mounted on the wagon: nor a man effeminated; nor him who begs for mercy; nor him whose horse is slain; nor him who is sitting; nor him who is taken a prisoner. 92: Nor him whose weapons are broken; nor him who is oppressed with sorrow; nor him who is seriously wounded; nor the coward and the fugitive."

—A people with ideas such as these, certainly had a delicate sense of honor, and we readily perceive how closely related to it the sentiment of personal liberty is, which took its rise chiefly among European peoples of Aryan blood. How different is the character of the negro! The negro bows in the dust before his master, covers his head with ashes, and even puts his master's foot upon it. Such base feeling was at all times detestable to the Aryan people. But in other nations, too, superior to the negroes, as for instance those of the Mongolian race, the Aryan sense of honor seems to be entirely wanting. They submit willingly to those in power, but, treacherous by nature, they never fail to take revenge whenever an opportunity offers. This distinction in the character of the different races is also noticeable in Europe. It was for a long time a matter of doubt whether the Slavonic people were part of the Aryan race. But it finally became quite evident that in these people also (especially among the higher classes) an Aryan element is to be found, though strongly mixed with un-Aryan blood, which preponderates in the lower classes. The ordinary Russian, therefore, has little sense of personal honor, and in the higher classes even, this sense is wanting more frequently than among the Germanic or Latin races. Among the Poles, however, this Aryan trait seems to be (especially among the nobility) much stronger.

—Bright as this side of the character of the Aryan races, their sense of honor, of human dignity,
Edition: current; Page: [146]
and of liberty, may be, the dark side is not wanting: and it stands in bold contrast with the other. The Aryans have, in the course of history, frequently shown themselves arrogant and selfish, the natural effect of this sentiment running to an extreme. In this manner, they have been very often tempted to consider themselves better than the rest of mankind, to treat them with contempt, and, as far as lay in their power, to reduce them to subjection. In the ancient castes of the Hindoos, this dark side of the character of the Aryan races is shown in a conspicuous way. But we find it also in European history, and we again discover it in America in the treatment of the negroes by the whites.

—However, the true mission of the Aryan nations is quite different: it consists in educating the nations and those classes morally and intellectually inferior to them, up to the standard of humanity and honor. And of this we find in history many a noble example. The Hellenes and Romans have, on the whole, thus influenced the nations of the world who came within the range of their superior intelligence, by civilizing and ennobling them. Another illustrious example we find in the history of the French people. The Celtic people, and among them the upper classes in particular, may, like the Slaves, share in the blood of the Aryans, but they undoubtedly have, in a very great degree, that of inferior races as well. For this reason they, as Celts, have never succeeded in establishing a permanent and independent form of government. Cæsar, who knew the Celtic people well, describes the masses of them as being in a very low condition, despised and plundered by both the priesthood and the knightly nobility. In the middle ages, too, the large rural classes (villeins) were characterized by the contempt in which they were held by others. And yet it will certainly be admitted now, that a very strong sense of honor and love of glory controls the whole French nation, from the highest to the very lowest class. The lowest Frenchman even is very sensitive on all matters touching the honor of his nation, and acts manfully when his feelings on this subject are aroused. This high standard of a whole nation is due to an educating process, which, as an essential factor of history, runs through centuries. The Romanic and Germanic elements in the population of France, together with Romanic and Germanic ideas, have gradually supplied what was wanting in the primitive character of the Celts; and both great rulers and great thinkers have, by action and thought, awakened and preserved among all classes a new and higher sense of nationality. This is but an instance of what the Aryan nations have to do throughout the world and for all mankind.

—Woman also, among the Aryans, enjoys the benefit of this superior standard of human dignity and honor. Indeed, the position of woman among the Aryan nations (especially in the east) was in many respects characterized by oppression. Yet, all the nations of Aryan stock cherish (as is shown by their legendary lore and their songs) an ideal of female honor which is far above the low, sensuous feeling with which so many non-Aryan nations look upon her sex. In Sanskrit a woman is called patni. the associate of the governing father, the mistress of the house. One of the consequences of this is, that the nations of Aryan stock were at all times in favor of monogamy. "One husband and one wife," is a principle thoroughly Aryan. Indeed, an honorable position for woman is inconceivable in a general state of polygamy. It is true, certain Aryan nations allowed, under certain circumstances and occasionally under certain conditions, individuals to have two and even more wives. We find this to be the case among the Hindoos, who let a man in case his first wife bore him no children, take another; and also among the Germanic people, who, from political reasons, suffered their princes to connect themselves with several families by way of marriage. Yet, among these nations, as among the Hellenic and Roman, monogamy is still the rule while polygamy forms the exception. The fact that a few Aryan tribes disregarded this primitive rule, is largely due to the influence of people who were members of a different stock. The Semitic race even held less refined sentiments on this point, while the people of the Mongolian and African races were still less scrupulous.

—The matrimonial relation is based on the family. A noble view of the former naturally leads to a noble view of the latter. For this reason, the Aryan races showed, from the beginning, a great interest in, and a true conception of, all family relations. It is remarkable that the words father, mother, son, daughter, brother and sister are traceable in all Aryan languages: a certain proof that the ideas which they suggest of the organic relation of the different members of the family were the common property of this body of nations. Everywhere the father is respected as the head of the family and the lord of the household. In him we find the power of the family concentrated, and it is he who directs and shapes its economy. But this power is far from being absolute; it is never like that of the master over his slave; on the contrary, it is always associated with certain duties, and those which are due to the members of the family are not forgotten. Yet, one objection may easily be raised here, in view of the provisions of the Roman law, which is substantially of Aryan origin. It is true, the Roman law considers the husband's power over his wife (manus) and the power of the father over his children (patria potestas) as absolute; and its legal effect was similar to that resulting from the power of the master over his slaves. But this objection loses its force when two things are considered: first, that the customs and social life of Rome were, in point of fact, better than the law and the theories of the jurists; secondly, that throughout the whole range of the Roman law, there was, besides the Aryan elements which constituted its principal feature, a Semitic element unmistakably embodying the principle of divine absolutism, and which we again find
Edition: current; Page: [147]
cropping out in the forms of the Roman law.

—The Aryan races, considering the family as an organic whole, clearly recognized in it a principle of continuity, connecting one generation with another, and, as a natural consequence, certain family rights and privileges. This is one of the most essential conditions of civilization. If we surrender the laws of inheritance, we are given over to barbarism. The knowledge of the fact that not only the blood of the ancestor, but also the results of his labor and provident care are to be transmitted to future generations, is one of the strongest spurs to his activity and providence. If man does not provide beyond the present day, his life is of but little value; and all human progress would surely be impeded, if all should (in all things which go to sustain life and add to its pleasures) have to commence with sunrise and stop at sunset, only to commence over again the next day in the same manner. It is this very character of the law establishing a rule of inheritance, which promotes the development of civilization, by transmitting all achievements which are lasting in their effects, as a priceless heritage from one generation to another.

—The case is not different as regards the idea of property, and land ownership in particular. A sort of ownership in chattels is indeed to be found almost universally, though among certain nations the forms in which it appears are not very well defined, and lack the positive sanction of law. But as regards the right of property in land, it was very difficult for mankind to conceive it and to introduce it as a legal institution. The Semitic race attributed all ownership in land, not to man, but to God. The first attempt to recognize this right in man was made by the Aryans, but not for the first time in Europe, but in Asia, as is shown by the primitive laws of the Hindoos. It was they who first attempted to assert an ownership in the soil and to parcel it out, and who by this means tried to secure for man and his family a permanent home. On this fact, however, all improvements in the way of agriculture, all the higher forms of civilization, and the permanent condition of all legal institutions depend.

—When we pass from private law to public law, the peculiar character and the superior position of the Aryan races are even more conspicuous. It may well be said. The Aryan nations are in a special manner the political nations. All higher forms of human government and polity originated with the Aryans; and it is for this reason that they secured the vast political power by means of which they have become the rulers of almost the entire globe.

—A glance at the map (Berghaus has endeavored to give us an idea of this in his ethnographical atlas) will make manifest the universal sway of the Aryan races, which in some parts has already taken the shape of undisputed supremacy, while in others this supremacy is fast becoming a fact. Europe, the foremost of the great divisions of our globe, is throughout occupied by Aryan states. It is true, we can find nowhere a purely Aryan nation. Throughout Europe, the forces of history have removed the ancient landmarks which divided the different peoples and in a great degree produced an admixture of their elements. Different inferior races had inhabited Europe, before the Hellenic people entered into history, and before Rome was known among the nations. Subsequently the Celts and Slaves spread among these people, and still later among these the Germans, like a higher ethnological stratum over an inferior one. But, after all, the ruling element in an Romanic and Germanic states is of Aryan origin. The English (Norman, Saxon) race formed by an intermixture of these two nations (the Romanic and Germanic) which has taken the lead in spreading the rule of the Aryan race throughout the world, shows, at the present day, traces of its Aryan origin. Although the Slaves may have less of Aryan blood, than the rest of the European peoples, they still belong to that family of nations, and are under the educating influence of the more civilized Germanic and Romanic peoples. In Europe, both the Finnish and Basque elements, however, though they may be complete strangers to the Aryan stock (which certainly can not be said of the Magyars who, in the course of history, have taken in a good deal of the Aryan character) occupy no independent station and are of no special importance.

—That great division of our globe, moreover, which seems to be destined to succeed Europe, whenever she may be tired of rule in the supremacy of the world, and to regenerate mankind, America, is, of course, not yet settled as completely by the Aryan race; but it is at the present time completely controlled and governed by it. All the lands on the seacoast are occupied by Aryan colonists, by Romanic and Germanic people; the aborigines are ever falling back before the advance of the superior white race and are continually being diminished in number; or they submit wholly to the rule of the whites. And as far as the African race is concerned, it may be said, that, as a whole, they never seem to rise above a state of voluntary servitude.

—The ancient country of Asia, however, the primitive seat of all the nations of Aryan stock, has lost its supremacy, and is gradually coming under the government and control of both Europe and America. In the south, the English and the Dutch have established their dominion; in the north we find the Russians; in the west the French; while in the east, the Americans have made their first attempt to assert their influence. But there is still an ancient Asiatic branch of the Aryan stock in that country, which has again sought a more intimate relation with the European Aryans. This relation is continually gaining in strength, and is certainly calculated to help the spread of the Aryan supremacy in Asia too. To this branch of the Aryan stock belong the Hindoos in India, the Parsees in Persia, the Afghans, Kurds, Armenians, the Circassians, etc.

—Among all the rest, Africa (the most inferior and backward in civilization) is the only country to which the Aryans
Edition: current; Page: [148]
have yet paid little attention. The important northern coasts of Africa are, at the present day, more under the influence of the Semitic than of the Aryan race. It is a fact, however, that they were early exposed to the influences of the culture which started from European Rome; and France has again made a recent effort to transmit to that part of the globe the fruits of Aryan civilization. And besides this, some of the most important points along the coasts of Africa (to the north, south and east) are settled by Europeans; and by this means a firm basis is secured for the extensive spread of Aryan civilization, whose tendency is to encompass the whole world.

—This universal supremacy of the Aryan nations will be fully secured in the end by their undoubted superiority on the seas.

—The whole of Polynesia is in their possession. All coasts, the sea, all rivers, all harbors are dependent on them. All means of transportation are in their hands.

—This supremacy is but evidence of the superior political intelligence and capacity of the Aryan nations. We indeed find political institutions among inferior nations too. But the government of these nations is vastly inferior as compared with the political institutions and governments of the Aryan races. And wherever they show traces of a higher character, we can, in the majority of cases, show these to have been due to the influence of men of Aryan blood. The Semitic race, primitively related to the Aryans, seems to be the one race which wrought out and followed a principle of polity of its own. But, in point of fact, there is a distinct difference between the Semitic and the Aryan idea of government and its polity; and no doubt the idea of the Aryans on this point is the wider in its range and the nobler in form, as shown by its outward development and realization among mankind. The Semitic races are thoroughly theocratic in sentiment. And theocracy has continued to be their ideal even when they, by the force of circumstances and the ruling powers, were compelled to submit to a different form of government. In Europe even, where the theocratic system was at no time looked upon with favor, we find a small number of ingenious men—representatives of the Semitic race—who, when they assume the character of political leaders, very frequently show themselves the advocates of a government under the immediate and absolute direction of divine authority. The political ideal of the Aryans, on the other hand, is evidently that system of government which is organized in accordance with the true and permanent instincts of human nature, and is controlled by the powers of reason in man.

—The distinction we have traced here in the political ideals of the different races receives additional support by a further fact of history. It was not until the Aryans succeeded in the attempt, that the essential distinction between a clerical body (the church) and the body politic (the state) between religion and politics, was clearly apprehended, and the separation of the state and church was effected; on which more than on all else the more refined and civilized sentiments of humanity depend. This is the best proof that the Aryan nations have a clear conception of the true nature and organization of the state.

—Proceeding from these general considerations to details, we succeed in tracing out the primitive ideas controlling the public laws of the Aryans. Among all the people of Aryan stock, in their earlier days, we find a body of freemen as the basis of their polity, and forming the principal part of the nation. It is, in a certain sense, the general rule regulating the primitive and elementary forms of human life. It participates in the making and administering of the public laws, and in the public affairs of the nation. In this body of free men the honor and the liberties of the people have their origin and support. What we, in our days, term the rights of citizenship, is but the modern expression of what, in ancient times, was embraced in the honor and liberties of this race. How different is the fact with the people belonging to an inferior race, who have not the slightest conception of this idea, and among whom the masses are either oppressed like slaves, or live in a wild state of nature! With them a slavish submission, or a continual warfare of all against all, is the rule.

—However, the Aryan races do not stop short of this idea of popular freedom, which, as sanctioned by the state, is political in its nature. As they have a particular regard for the honor and dignity of man, it is quite natural that they should measure and value men by this standard, and, in consequence of this, be apt to perceive and establish distinctions among men. The principle of absolute equality among men, is a non-Aryan idea; the Aryan people hold to and consider certain distinctions, because given to closer examination. We consequently find among all the Aryan nations certain strong distinctions among the population which are fully recognized by these nations. Among the Hindoos these distinctions have become fixed with great rigor in the form of an immutable system of castes. Among other Aryan nations, especially among the European, these distinctions have retained their fluctuating character. They have entered into the moving process of history, and change with the change of the times. The mummy-like castes of the Hindoos have, in Europe, taken the shape of estates, as wrought out by the traditions of history; and European history is essentially determined by the history of these estates. Whoever has not learned to regard these distinctions in the population and the mutations to which they have been subject, in course of time, will never gain a clear insight into the history of European states.

—The divisions of the people into estates is shown in the oldest myths of the Aryans, while we may discover, at the same time, a clear distinction, on this point, between the religious views and the political views of the people. The religious views lay the greatest stress on the relation of man to God, and hence on the equality of men before God. They hold, in the first place,
Edition: current; Page: [149]
all men to be the children of the one Lord (brethren) and as such to be equal one to another. This point of view is certainly, as far as religion and its revelations are concerned, the most important and essential. But the state can not absolutely base itself on this principle of equality. As it is the business of the state to regulate human relations and conditions, it must pay due regard also to the differences between men, which exist side by side with that equality. To order or regulate, after all, means nothing but to perceive and protect the true relations of all differences. As the state is the regulating principle and power among men, it naturally presupposes distinctions among them.

—This remarkable contrast between religious and political views is shown even in the most ancient legends concerning the origin of man. While the Semitic people, in their legend of the creation of Adam, forcibly point out the unity and equality of the human race (being entirely under the influence of the religious sentiment) the Hindoos and the Germanic people (the two extremes in the series of Aryan nations) indicate, in their versions of th